Megha 29_wp_4876_2015.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4876 OF 2015 Shrimant Pranay Parshuram Patwardhan ...Petitioner V/s. Jagdish Mohanlal Joshi and Anr. ...Respondents ______________ Mr. Pranav Mohani i/b. M/s. Kanga and co. for the Petitioner. Mr. Abhijeet J. Kandarkar for the Respondent No.1. ______________ CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED: 04 NOVEMBER 2025. P.C.: 1) Petition challenges order dated 20 March 2015 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, rejecitng the application at Exhibit-15 filed in Special Darkhast No.261 of 2009 seeking stay of execution proceedings. 2) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that Respondent No.1- Plaintiff filed Special Civil Suit No. 365 of 1996 seeking specific performance of contract for sale of the suit property. It appears that the Petitioner, who is Defendant No.1 in the suit appeared and filed written statement contesting the Suit. Plaintiff’s application at Exhibit- 5 for temporary injunction was allowed by order dated 11 September 1996 restraining Defendant No.2(third party) from transferring the suit Page No. 1 of 4 04 November 2025 2025:BHC-AS:47213 Megha 29_wp_4876_2015.docx property by any means until disposal of the Suit. The Suit came to be finally decreed ex-parte on 18 August 2009 as Defendant No.1 failed to defend the Suit after filing the written statement. Defendant No.1 was directed to execute Sale Deed of the suit property in favour of the Plaintiff on receipt of balance sale consideration of Rs.4.75 crores. Since Defendant No.1 failed to act in accordance with the decree, Plaintff initiated execution proceedings by filing Special Darkhast No.261 of 2009. 3) It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 that balance amount of consideration of Rs.4.75 crores has been deposited by the Plaintiff in the Trial Court. After receipt of notice in the execution proceedings Petitioner- Defendant No.1 filed two applications on 4 February 2010. He filed application for setting aside ex-parte decree under the provisions of Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code) and on the same day he also sought stay of execution proceedings by filing application at Exhibit-15. 4) Application at Exhibit-15 seeking stay of execution proceedings came up before the executing court five years later on 20 March 2015. Despite passage of 5 long years after filing of application for setting aside ex-parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code, Petitioner-Defendant No.1 did not take any steps for getting the ex- parte decree set aside. The executing court has proceeded to reject the application at Exhibit-15 for stay of execution of proceedings by order dated 20 March 2015. Petitioner has accordingly filed the present Petition challenging the order dated 20 March 2015. By order dated 18 Page No. 2 of 4 04 November 2025 Megha 29_wp_4876_2015.docx June 2015 this Court directed that the ex-parte decree shall not be executed subject to the Petitioners not creating third party rights or parting with possession. The Petition is thereafter pending for the last 10 long years. Even during passage of this period of 10 years, Petitioner -Defendant No.1 has still not deligently prosecuted the application for setting aside ex-parte decree filed on 4 February 2010. Till now, period of 15 long years has passed and said application still continues to remain pending. The above conduct on the part of the Petitioner/Defendant No.1 clearly indicates deliberate act of delay thereby preventing the Plaintiff from executing the decree passed in his favour. If Petitioner-Defendant No.1 was diligent enough in prosecuting the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code he would have got the same decided during past 15 long years. 5) The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that said application is now at an advanced stage of hearing and presses for deferment of hearing of the present Petition. I am unable to accede to the said request. Present Petition is pending for the last 10 years. Despite filing of application for setting aside order dated 20 March 2015 and despite passage of 15 long years Petitioner-Defendant No.1 has not been able to get the ex-parte decree set aside. Plaintiff’s execution application cannot be kept pending indefinetly till Petitioner- Defendant No.1 gets his application under Order IX Rule 13 decided. 6) Even otherwise perusal of the application at Exhibit-15 filed in Special Darkhast No.261 of 2009 would indicate that the same is actually in the nature of an application for setting aside ex-parte decree. Provisions of Order XXI Rule 26 of the Code are clear, which Page No. 3 of 4 04 November 2025 Megha 29_wp_4876_2015.docx enable the Court to stay the execution proceedings till the judgment debtor exercises remedy of challenging the order under execution. In the present case despite availability of time of 15 long years Defendant No.1 has failed to have his application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code decided. In my view, therefore the execution proceedings cannot be stayed any further. In fact, dismissal of the Petition would instill some degree of urgency for the Petitioner-Defendant No.1 to deligently prosecute application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code. Even otherwise if the Petitioner-Defendant No.1 succeeds in getting the ex- parte decree set aside, execution proceedings would automatically come to an end. 7) In my view, therefore there is no warrant for intereference in the impugned order dated 20 March 2015. The Petition is accordingly dismissed. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] Page No. 4 of 4 04 November 2025 Signed by: Megha S. Parab Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 07/11/2025 14:59:32