10-WP4034-2026+.DOC Santosh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4034 OF 2026 Mahendra Meghani ...Petitioner Versus M/s. Shree Tirupati Greenfield And Ors …Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4036 OF 2026 Kamal Khandhadia ...Petitioner Versus M/s. Shree Tirupati Greenfield And Ors …Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4035 OF 2026 Kamal Khandhadia ...Petitioner Versus M/s. Shree Tirupati Greenfield And Ors …Respondents Mr. Narayan Sahu, i/b Ashish Pawar, for the Petitioner in all WP. Mr. Saurabh Oka, for the Respondents in all WP. CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED: 12th OCTOBER, 2026 PC:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners. 2. The petitioners – decree-holders are aggrieved by the disposal of the execution petition filed by the petitioners after recording satisfaction of the decrees. 1/2 SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Digitally signed by SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Date: 2026.10.14 09:52:17 +0530 10-WP4034-2026+.DOC 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the petitioners have preferred appeals against the decrees that were put to execution. In the event the petitioners succeed in the said appeals, the petitioners would be entitled to recover more amount from the respondents – defendants, and, therefore, the execution petitions ought to have been kept pending. 4. There is no legal infirmity in the impugned order. 5. Suffice to clarify that, in the event the petitioners succeed in the appeals and the decree(s) passed by the Commercial Court is/are modified, the petitioners may revive the execution petition(s) to the extent of enhanced amount, if any. 6. The petitions stand disposed. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] 2/2