43-CA.11207.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11207 OF 2026 IN WRIT PETITION NO.12611 OF 2023 Vilas s/o. Baliram Koli ..Applicant Vs. Kadu Lahanu Koli since deceased through L.Rs. Bhaulal s/o. Kadu Koli and ors. ..Respondents ---- Mr.L.V.Sangit, Advocate for applicant Mr.P.N.Kutti, Advocate for respondents ---- CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 24, 2026 ORDER :- This Court on 04.09.2026 dismissed the Writ Petition No.12611 of 2023 with a reasoned order. The operative part of the order dated 04.09.2026 reads thus:- I. The Writ Petition stands dismissed with cost of Rs.15,000/- to be deposited in the Executing Court by the Petitioner within a period of Four weeks from today; II. If the cost is not deposited within the given time, the consequences to follow. III. The executing machinery shall execute the possession warrant within a period of Four weeks from today. The Petitioner shall peacefully handover the possession of suit property to the respondents. No separate notice shall be required to the Petitioner for handing over possession. 2026:BHC-AUG:43825 2 43-CA.11207 2. This Civil Application is taken up on today’s board at the instance of the applicant/original petitioner showing extreme urgency. Vide this application, a prayer is made to stay the execution of the order passed by this court on 04.09.2026 in Writ Petition No.12611 of 2023 for a period of eight weeks so as to take up the judgment and order in challenge. 3. Mr.Sangit, learned advocate for the applicant submits that this prayer was not advanced by him at the time when the arguments were advanced in the Writ Petition as also on the date on which the judgment was pronounced in the open court. He would submit that the applicant has deposited the costs, as was directed, in the trial court. With this, he prays to allow the present application. 4. Mr.Kutti, learned advocate for the respondent would vehemently oppose the application. He would submit that this is nothing but another attempt by the applicant to prolong the execution of the decree. He pertinently submits that neither during the arguments nor when the judgment was pronounced in the open court, such prayer was made by the applicants. It is almost twenty days after the judgment and order was pronounced, such prayer is being made. He prays to reject the application. 3 43-CA.11207 5. Heard learned advocates for the parties extensively. In the Writ Petition, challenge was to the execution of a possession decree arising out of a suit of 2001. This court observed that in the earlier round of a proxy litigation at the behest of the petitioner’s sons, execution was challenged by filing an application for intervention challenging maintenability on account of jurisdiction. The said challenge was rejected. That, the intervenor even challenged the said order before the District Court which was turned down. Even in the Second Appeal also this court turned down the said objection. Thereafter, the petitioners filed objection under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. With a reasoned order, this court has observed that the Writ Petition was devoid of any merit and considering the long standing pendency of the litigation and in order to save the fruits of justice being defeated, this court dismissed the Writ Petition. Considering all the facts in totality, in the open court the executing court was directed to execute the possession warrant within four weeks and the petitioner was directed to hand over possession of the suit property to the respondents. 4 43-CA.11207 6. For the reasons recorded above, I do not find any merit in this application. The Civil Application stands dismissed. [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.] ……….. KBP