Megha 8_wp_6244_2022 wi6093_22 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6093 OF 2022 Orix Leasing and Financial Services India Ltd. ...Petitioner V/s. Atharali Muzafarali Khan and Anr. ...Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6244 OF 2022 Orix Leasing and Financial Services India Ltd. ...Petitioner V/s. Atharali Muzafarali Khan and Anr. ...Respondents ________________ Mr. Padmanabh D. Pise with Ms. Sejal A. Hariyan i/b. M/s. Padmanabh and Associates for the Petitioner. Mr. V.R. Tripathi i/b. Mr. Rajesh Dixit for Respondent No.1. ________________ CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED: 18 MARCH 2026. P.C.: 1) In Writ Petition No.6093 of 2022 challenge is to the order dated 15 December 2021 passed by the City Civil Court at Greater Bombay, rejecting the Notice of Motion No.103250 of 2019. The Motion was @led by the Petitioner, who is a non-banking @nancial company for the purpose of objecting to the attachment and sale of the properties in execution of the money decree passed in favour of the Plaintiff. Page No. 1 of 4 18 March 2026 2026:BHC-AS:13790 Megha 8_wp_6244_2022 wi6093_22 2) According to the Petitioner, the Suit was @led based on alleged amount of hand loan and the same has been decreed ex-parte. It is contended that the decree is secured for the purpose of frustrating the claim of the mortgage of the Petitioner in respect of the mortgaged property. It is with this grievance, Petitioner sought to intervene in execution proceedings and objected to attachment of property, which is allegedly mortgaged with the Petitioner. 3) Perusal of order dated 15 December 2021 would indicate that the Petitioner has produced only a photocopy of mortgage deed. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner can produce original mortgage deed before the Executing Court. He also relies on order dated 21 February 2024 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai allowing Application under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and appointing the Court Commissioner for taking over possession of the secured assets. In my view, claim of the Petitioner needs to be examined afresh by the Executing Court by taking into consideration the original deed of mortgage as well as the subsequent event of passing of order dated 21 February 2024 by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. In that view of the matter, Notice of Motion No.103250 of 2019 deserves to be remanded for decision afresh. In the event, the Executing Court is satis@ed that the properties, which are sought to be attached by the Decree Holder are mortgaged assets of the Petitioner, the court will have Page No. 2 of 4 18 March 2026 Megha 8_wp_6244_2022 wi6093_22 to ultimately decide whether the suit properties can be attached or sold in execution of the decree. 4) So far as Writ Petition No.6244 of 2022 is concerned, the same challenges order dated 15 December 2021 dismissing Chamber Summons No.1563 of 2019 @led by the Petitioner seeking intervention in the execution proceedings. Since Notice of Motion is rejected, the Executing Court has also proceeded to reject the chamber summons for intervention. 5) The learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 relies on judgment of this Court in Amol Vishwanath Bade V/s. Dattatraya Dinkar Ghule and Ors.1 in support of his contention that Petitioner is a third party and cannot have any locus to intervene in the execution proceedings. However, the Notice of Motion is not rejected by the Executing Court on the ground of absence of locus of the Petitioner. Motion is rejected essentially by expressing the doubts about photocopy of mortgage deed relied upon by the Petitioner. Now that the Petitioner is willing to produce original Mortgage Deed and also rely upon subsequent developments to establish a claim of prior mortgage in respect of the property sought to be attached, in my view the opportunity needs to be given to the Petitioner and Notice of Motion needs to be heard and decided afresh. 6) Consequently, order dated 15 December 2021 passed in Notice of Motion No. 103250 of 2019 as well as order dated 15 December 2021 1 2014(3) ALL MR 644 Page No. 3 of 4 18 March 2026 Megha 8_wp_6244_2022 wi6093_22 passed in Chamber Summons No.1563 of 2019 are set aside. Notice of Motion No.103250 of 2019 and Chamber Summons No.1563 of 2019 are remanded for fresh decision by the Executing Court. The Petitioner would be at liberty to produce original deed of mortgage as well as rely upon the necessary documents for the purpose of proving its charge on the property slated for attachment by the Executing Court. The Notice of Motion and Chamber Summons shall be decided by the Trial Court on their own merits without being inEuenced by the observations made by this Court in the order. 7) All rights and contentions of the parties on merits are expressly kept open. 8) With the above directions, both the Writ Petitions are partly allowed and disposed of. 9) Till the Notice of Motion and Chamber Summons are decided afresh, no further steps shall be taken by the Executing Court for the auction of the properties concerned. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] Page No. 4 of 4 18 March 2026 Signed by: Megha S. Parab Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 23/03/2026 19:59:04