Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, challenging an order dated 17/07/2026 passed by the 19th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur in Final Decree Proceedings No.12/2012. The underlying dispute arose from a partition decree passed on 25/08/2011 in Special Civil Suit No.842/2006, wherein respondent No.1 was declared entitled to 1/18th share in Nazul Plot No.144, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur. The preliminary decree attained finality. In the final decree proceedings, the Court Commissioner reported that the property was impartible, leading the Executing Court on 19/10/2023 to order sale by public auction. After a failed first attempt, a second auction took place on 30/01/2026, and respondent No.21 (auction purchaser Shah Doshi Services LLP) was declared successful with a bid of Rs.30 Crore. The auction purchaser deposited Rs.9 Crore on the same day and the balance on 12/02/2026, making full payment of Rs.30 Crore. Subsequently, a judgment debtor filed an objection vide Exhibit-163 on 16/02/2026. The petitioner filed an application Exhibit-169 on 23/03/2026 challenging the jurisdiction of the Executing Court under Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which was rejected on 19/06/2026. On 23/06/2026, the auction purchaser filed application Exhibit-186 seeking condonation of delay in deposit of stamp duty of Rs.2.1 crores, confirmation of sale, issuance of sale certificate under Order XXI Rule 94, and forwarding of documents to the Sub Registrar under Section 89 of the Registration Act, 1908. The petitioner opposed the application, arguing that the proviso to Order XXI Rule 85 (Bombay Amendment) did not confer power to condone delay in deposit of stamp duty except for bona fide mistake or miscalculation. The Executing Court allowed the application partly, condoning the delay in deposit of stamp duty and granting liberty to the auction purchaser to file separate applications for the remaining reliefs. The petitioner, who did not appear to argue before the Executing Court, filed the present writ petition. On 14/08/2026, the High Court issued notice only to respondents 1 and 21, treating them as contesting parties, and dispensed with notice to others. The matter was heard on 17/08/2026, and the judgment was pronounced on 21/08/2026. The extracted portion of the judgment does not contain the final decision or reasoning of the High Court.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Execution Proceedings - Condonation of Delay in Deposit of Stamp Duty - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XXI Rule 85 (Bombay Amendment) - The writ petition challenged the Executing Court's order condoning delay in deposit of stamp duty by the auction purchaser. The petitioner contended that the proviso to Order XXI Rule 85 does not confer power to condone delay except for bona fide mistake or miscalculation. The High Court was called upon to examine the scope of the power (Paras 1, 7, 9).
B) Civil Procedure - Auction Sale - Confirmation of Sale and Sale Certificate - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XXI Rule 94; Registration Act, 1908, Section 89 - The auction purchaser sought confirmation of sale, issuance of sale certificate, and forwarding of stamp duty to Sub-Registrar. The Executing Court allowed only the prayer for condonation of delay in deposit of stamp duty and granted liberty to file separate applications for the remaining reliefs (Paras 6-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Executing Court had jurisdiction/power to condone delay in deposit of stamp duty by auction purchaser under proviso to Order XXI Rule 85 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Bombay Amendment); whether the impugned order dated 17/07/2026 below Exhibit-186 in Final Decree Proceedings No.12/2012 was sustainable.
Law Points
- Order XXI Rule 85 of Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908 (Bombay Amendment) provision on time for payment of full purchase money
- as contended by petitioner
- no power to condone delay except for bona fide mistake or miscalculation
- requirement of deposit of stamp duty by auction purchaser
- issuance of sale certificate under Order XXI Rule 94
- forwarding of stamp duty to Sub Registrar under Section 89 of Registration Act
- 1908
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (08) 174
Writ Petition No.6310 of 2026
Shri Shraddhanand Bhutada, Shri R. D. Bhuibhar, Shri Rahul M. Bhangde
Arun S/o Gaurishankar Gupta
Ramesh S/o Jeevanlal Gupta, Mahesh S/o Babulalji Gupta, Anil S/o Babulalji Gupta, Suresh S/o Babulalji Gupta, Hemant S/o Keshav Soni, Smt. Saroj W/o Ramesh Kharaya, Smt. Rukhmani W/o Ashok Sijaria, Smt. Shashi W/o Santosh Kathal, Ashok S/o Gaurishankar Gupta, Ajay S/o Dr. Suresh Gupta, Smt. Megha W/o Vikas Choudha, Smt. Vaishali W/o Puneet Badoniya, Smt. Indu W/o Dr. Ram Kumar Villaya, Mohandas S/o Govinddas Gupta, Sohan S/o Jeevanlal Gupta, Sandhya W/o Pradeep Dadriya, Virendra S/o Jeevanlal Gupta (since dead) represented by legal heirs Smt. Manorama Wd/o Virendra Gupta and Sumit S/o Virendra Gupta, Sunil S/o Jeevanlal Gupta, Gopaldas S/o Jeevanlal Gupta, Amit S/o Subhash Baderia, Shah Doshi Services LLP (auction purchaser)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging an order passed by the Executing Court in final decree proceedings, which condoned delay in deposit of stamp duty by an auction purchaser and granted liberty to file separate applications for confirmation of sale and sale certificate.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing/setting aside of the order dated 17/07/2026 passed below Exhibit-186 by the 19th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, whereby the Executing Court condoned delay in deposit of stamp duty and granted liberty to file separate applications.
Filing Reason
The petitioner contended that the Executing Court erroneously condoned the delay in deposit of stamp duty by the auction purchaser, allegedly contrary to the proviso to Order XXI Rule 85 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Bombay Amendment), which does not confer power to condone delay except for bona fide mistake or miscalculation.
Previous Decisions
Preliminary decree dated 25/08/2011 in Special Civil Suit No.842/2006 granted respondent No.1 a 1/18th share; Executing Court ordered sale by public auction on 19/10/2023; application Exhibit-169 challenging jurisdiction was rejected on 19/06/2026; impugned order dated 17/07/2026 allowed application Exhibit-186 partly in terms of prayer clause (i).
Issues
Whether the Executing Court had jurisdiction to condone delay in deposit of stamp duty by auction purchaser under proviso to Order XXI Rule 85 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Bombay Amendment).
Whether the impugned order dated 17/07/2026 condoning delay and granting liberty to file separate applications was legally sustainable.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner contended that proviso to Order XXI Rule 85 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (State amendment) does not confer power on the Executing Court to condone delay in deposit of stamp duty; power can be exercised only in case of bona fide mistake or miscalculation.
Auction purchaser sought condonation of delay in deposit of stamp duty of Rs.2.1 crores and permission to deposit the same in the interest of justice.
Judgment Excerpts
Rule . Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
The present petition challenges order dated 17/07/2026 passed below application Exhibit-186 in Final Decree proceedings No.12/2012 passed by the 19th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur.
The Executing Court after hearing the auction purchaser allowed the application partly in terms of prayer clause (i) only.
The relevant provisions are reproduced as under : “ High Court Amendments- [Bombay].-For the existing rule 85, substitute the following rule and marginal note:-"85. Time for payment in full of purchase money. The full amount of purchase money payable, togethe
Procedural History
On 25/08/2011, Special Civil Suit No.842/2006 was decreed granting respondent No.1 a 1/18th share in Nazul Plot No.144, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur. Final decree proceedings No.12/2012 were initiated. On 19/10/2023, the Executing Court ordered sale of the property by public auction as the property was impartible. On 30/01/2026, respondent No.21 emerged as successful bidder for Rs.30 Crore, depositing Rs.9 Crore on the same day and the balance on 12/02/2026. On 16/02/2026, a judgment debtor filed objection Exhibit-163. On 23/03/2026, petitioner filed Exhibit-169 challenging jurisdiction, which was rejected on 19/06/2026. On 23/06/2026, auction purchaser filed Exhibit-186 seeking condonation of delay in stamp duty deposit, confirmation of sale, sale certificate, etc. On 17/07/2026, Executing Court allowed the application partly in terms of prayer clause (i) and granted liberty to file separate applications for remaining reliefs. On 14/08/2026, High Court issued notice to respondents 1 and 21 only and dispensed with notice to others. The writ petition was heard on 17/08/2026 and judgment pronounced on 21/08/2026.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XXI Rule 85, Order XXI Rule 94, Section 54
- Registration Act, 1908: Section 89
