BEBABAI NAGO MARATHE DIED THR LRS SUMANBAI KASHINATH MARATHE v. AADHAR DONGAR MARATHE DIED THR LRS MAGAN AADHAR MARATHE AND OTHERS
WP/12732/2026 · 2026-09-22
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 11347 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 11347 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1 925.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 12732 OF 2026 BEBABAI NAGO MARATHE DIED THR LRS SUMANBAI KASHINATH MARATHE VERSUS AADHAR DONGAR MARATHE DIED THR LRS MAGAN AADHAR MARATHE AND OTHERS ... Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Laxman Vishnu Sangit Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1a & 2 : Mr. Malte Uday S. …
CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.
DATE : 22nd SEPTEMBER, 2026 PER COURT :
1. The Petitioner is challenging the order passed below Exhibit 22, wherein the Application seeking time to file say in the execution proceedings has been rejected vide order dated 10.09.2025.
2. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner has placed on record the earlier orders passed in the earlier Applications filed by the present Petitioner who is a judgment debtor seeking adjournment in the execution proceedings filed on 10.09.2025, as well as the order passed thereon on the very day wherein the Court has recorded that since last three dates, the judgment debtor is seeking adjournment for say and is not taking 2026:BHC-AUG:42925
2 925.odt steps for filing the say. The Application filed by the Petitioner seeking adjournment discloses that the Advocate on record appearing for the
judgment debtor was out of station. Therefore, the adjournment Application was filed on 10.09.2025. However, the Court has recorded that even on the previous three dates, the judgment debtor has failed to file say and on this background, the Application came to be rejected.
3. It is the contention of the Petitioner that the Petitioner needs to be granted one opportunity to file the say in the execution Application. The prayer made by the Petitioner is vehemently opposed by the learned Advocate appearing for all the Respondents, by contending that in spite of the order passed by this Court on 03.11.2023, observing that the Petitioner herein who is a judgment debtor is avoiding to comply with the
order passed in the Regular Civil Appeal no. 157/2011, dated 05.04.2016. This Court has imposed costs of Rs. 5,000/- after observing the conduct of the present Petitioner and has also granted six months time to vacate the premises. He has also observed the conduct of the Petitioner more particularly his failure to vacate the premises as directed by this Court vide order dated 07.11.2009, and has further directed that the Petitioner shall vacate the suit premises forthwith.
4. It is submitted that in spite of the orders passed by this Court
3 925.odt on 03.11.2023, the Petitioner is filing Application and seeking adjournment, thereby protracting the litigation. He further submits that neither the Petitioner has paid the costs as directed by this Court vide
order dated 03.11.2023, nor the possession has been handed over by vacating the premises. In view thereof, it is submitted that no interference is warranted in the order impugned. Although the submissions made by the learned Advocate for the Respondents is supported by the various orders passed by this Court placed on record.
5. In my opinion, it would be appropriate to grant one last opportunity to the Petitioner to file his say to the execution Application no. 01/2024, on the condition that the Petitioner shall comply with clause no. 3 of the order passed by this Court in Second Appeal no. 31/2017, dated 03.11.2023, by making payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the Respondent within a period of one week from the date of this order.
6. In addition, the Petitioner shall also pay costs of Rs. 10,000/- for the inconvenience caused to the Respondent herein and also shall not seek any adjournment in the execution proceedings pending before the executing Court, subject to fulfillment of the aforementioned conditions the liberty to file say is granted. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that in fact tomorrow itself i.e. on 23.09.2026, the date is fixed
4 925.odt for execution of the order before the trial Court, the learned Advocate undertake to inform the trial Court about the order passed by this Court.
7. With the aforementioned directions, Writ Petition stands
disposed of.
( MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. ) SPC