39 WP No.1547.2017 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1547 OF 2017 SHRIKRISHNA KACHARDAS SOMANI AND OTHERS VERSUS JANARDHAN SHANKAR DHAS ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. B. A. Darak Advocate for Respondents : Mr. N. B. Narwade ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. Date : 4th March, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. Heard learned counsel for respective sides. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 19.03.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Shevgaon below Exh. 45 and 60 in R. D. No. 20 of 2006. 3. The learned Executing Court disposed of the Darkhast (execution petition) on the ground that the Decree Holder (DH) had alienated the suit property during the pendency of the proceedings. The Trial Court held that once the DH has sold their right, title, and interest in the property, they no longer possess the legal standing to pursue the execution further, as the interest in the decree has effectively passed out of their hands. 2026:BHC-AUG:10008 39 WP No.1547.2017 -2- 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the execution should have continued despite the sale. However, upon a careful perusal of the record and the specific Agreement to Sale executed between the DH and the subsequent purchaser, it is evident that the subject matter of the sale is the exact same property for which the execution was filed. Since the DH has voluntarily divested themselves of the property rights, the Trial Court’s decision to dispose of the proceedings is legally sound. 5. Therefore, I find no merit in the petitioner’s contention that the execution can proceed in the absence of a subsisting legal interest in the property. 6. In view of the above observations, I find no error or illegality in the order passed by the Executing Court. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 8. Pending civil applications, if any, also stands disposed of. (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.) Omkar Joshi