17-WP17076-2024.DOC Santosh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 17076 OF 2024 Ramprabhu Gopinath Kapse ...Petitioner Versus Shevantabai Baburao Kapse …Respondent Mr. Akshay Kulkarni, for the Petitioner. Mr. Samir Kumbhakoni, a/w Anjali Shaw and Chaitanya Joshi, for the Respondent. CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED: 24th APRIL, 2025 Order:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 14th October, 2024 passed by the Executing Court, whereby an application preferred by the petitioner – Judgment Debtor to adduce evidence to show the value of the standing crop in the suit property and the improvements purportedly carried out by the Judgment Debtor in the intervening period, came to be rejected. 3. The respondent instituted a suit for possession of the suit property. It was dismissed by a judgment and order dated 30th January, 1986. The said decree was reversed in appeal by the First Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No.204 of 1986 by 1/4 SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Digitally signed by SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Date: 2025.04.28 17:48:01 +0530 17-WP17076-2024.DOC a judgment and order dated 25th September, 1990. The Second Appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by this Court. 4. When the possession warrant was issued, the Bailiff reported that there was standing sugarcane crop. It was valued at Rs.13,000/-. The petitioner thus filed an application seeking permission to lead evidence to substantiate his claim that the petitioner had in fact incurred expenses to the tune of Rs.1,45,600/- to cultivate the sugarcane and had also developed the suit property by incurring expenses for a farm house, planting trees and irrigation etc. By the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge was persuaded to reject the application. 5. The learned Civil Judge was of the view that the petitioner was putting hindrances in the execution of the decree passed prior to 30 years by filing applications, one after another. The Executing Court referred to the conduct of the petitioner. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of B. Gangadhar vs. D. G. Rajalingam1 wherein it was enunciated that the Executing Court possessed incidental, ancillary or inherent power to execute the decree for delivery of possession, the Executing Court held that the petitioner had 1 AIR 1996 SC 780. 2/4 17-WP17076-2024.DOC carried out the alleged improvement in the suit property despite the decree having been passed in the year 1990 and, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to adduce evidence and claim expenses for the development. 6. Mr. Kulkarni, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the estimated value of the standing crop of Rs.13,000/- was owefully inadequate. Though the petitioner may not claim value of the improvements carried out by the petitioner in the suit land yet the petitioner is entitled to adduce evidence to show the value of the standing crop. Therefore, this Court may permit the petitioner to adduce evidence in a time- bound manner. 7. Mr. Kumbhkoni resisted the submissions on behalf of the petitioner. An endeavour was made to demonstrate the manner in which the petitioner has delayed the execution of the decree by filing various applications. 8. The view of the learned Civil Judge, in the fats of the case, appears impeccable. The petitioner cannot be permitted to delay the execution of the decree by seeking permission to adduce evidence, especially in respect of the purported development carried out by the petitioner despite being fully aware that a decree of possession had been affirmed by this Court, prior to 3/4 17-WP17076-2024.DOC decades. The expenses incurred by the petitioner were at his own risk as to costs and consequences. 9. The petitioner can, however, be permitted to remove the crop. The Court finds that when the Bailiff had visited the suit property to deliver possession of the suit property, the sugarcane crop was about 4 to 5 months old. By this time, the sugarcane crop must have been harvested. In any event, it may be appropriate to direct that the decree for possession of the suit property be executed after a period of one month, so as to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to remove the crop as well as the articles, equipments and fixtures from the suit property. 10. Hence, the following order: : O R D E R : (i) The petition stands dismissed. (ii) The decree for delivery of possession of the suit property be executed after a period of one month from today. (iii) In the meanwhile, the petitioner is at liberty to remove the crop as well as the articles, equipments and fixtures from the suit property. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] 4/4