Diksha Rane 13 WP 7214 2024.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7214 OF 2024 MOHINI RESORTS PVT LTD ..PETITIONER VS SHOBHA SUDHARKAR MORE ..RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.3020 OF 2024 M/S MOINI RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED THR. ITS AUTHORIZED SIGHNATORY ..PETITIONER VS MANGLA BALSINGH THORAT ..RESPONDENT Senior Counsel Ranjit Thorat a/w. Adv. Rohan P. Surve, Adv. Vikas Joshi for petitioners. Adv. Ketki Gadkari for respondent. CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. DATE : 19th AUGUST, 2026. Per Court : WRIT PETITION NO.7214 OF 2024 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner by the present petition challenges the order dated 4th January, 2024 passed on Exhibit-236 by the Executing Court. The Executing Court has particularly noticed that an application filed for execution of a decree which has attained 19th AUGUST, 2026 2026:BHC-AS:34639 Diksha Rane 13 WP 7214 2024.docx finality uptil the Supreme Court for execution of the decree. The objection is raised by the obstructionist that the decree cannot be executed as the applicant has also filed another suit being Special Civil Suit No.1707/2009 for possession of the land which also includes the property in the present suit. It is submitted that the decree holder has also initiated execution proceedings in Civil Suit No.1142 of 1965 and the defendant no.4 cannot initiate two parallel proceedings against the third party for the same subject matter and the person cannot be waxed twice for the same cause. Thus, it is a abuse process of law. 3. Considering the objection raised by the petitioner, the Executing Court has observed that the decree holder can either elect to continue Special Civil Suit No.1707/2009 for relief of possession or elect the remedy of execution of the decree passed in Civil Suit No.1142 of 1965. 4. Challenging the order passed by the Small Causes Court dated 4th January 2024, learned counsel for the applicant Mr. Thorat submits that the subject matter of the Special Civil Suit No.1707/2009 is entirely different. The relief claimed in the suit relates to larger tracks of land and has no bearing upon the present execution proceedings. He also submits that the Executing Court cannot travel beyond the decree and direct the parties to elect a remedy. Objection can be to the subsequent Special Civil Suit No.1707/2009, if barred by res-judicata. However, in the execution 19th AUGUST, 2026 Diksha Rane 13 WP 7214 2024.docx proceedings initiated, there would be no objection for execution of the decree in view of the filing of the subsequent suit. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also points out that an earlier application was also filed for similar relief at Exhibit-285 which has been rejected by an order dated 27th March, 2019. After dismissal, same objection is raised by the obstructionists, and it is not available for the Executing Court to direct election of either of the remedies. Learned counsel submits that he is entitled to execute the decree in the Civil Suit No.1142 of 1965 notwithstanding filing Special Civil Suit No.1707/2009 which is for larger track of land. 6. Per contra, learned counsel Ms.Gadkari, appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner should elect a remedy by proceeding in Special Civil Suit No.1707/2009 or elect a remedy of executing the present decree. She also submits that execution of the decree is barred by limitation. Learned counsel also submits that she has a right in the suit property through the judgment debtor no.4 and that the decree is barred by limitation. 7. The obstructionist is at liberty to take such objection, which she has independently taken, and the issue is in consideration before this Court in another Writ Petition No.9686 of 2026. However, the Executing Court cannot direct the decree holder to elect a remedy. 19th AUGUST, 2026 Diksha Rane 13 WP 7214 2024.docx 8. Considering the same, the order passed dated 4th January 2024, by the Executing Court directing the petitioner to elect a remedy of either to proceed with execution of the decree or with Special Civil Suit No.1707/2009 is erroneous in law and is accordingly set aside. 9. The Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.3020 OF 2024 10. Issue notice to the respondent, returnable on 2nd September, 2026. [ ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.] 19th AUGUST, 2026 Signed by: Diksha Rane Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 21/08/2026 19:44:53