Sona Pradip Walvekar vs Shri. Anil Narsinha Annachhatre ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3232 Bom

Dusane                                         1/4          6 wp 4853.17 aw caw 560.doc

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                              WRIT PETITION NO.4853 OF 2017
                                        ALONGWITH
                             CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 560 OF 2018



     Sona Pradip Walvekar                            ....     Petitioner

             Vs.

     Shri. Anil Narsinha Annachhatre                 ....     Respondents
     & Ors.

     Mr. Nikhil Wadikar a/w Pradip Zende i/by Nandu Pawar for Petitioner.
     Mr. Rohan Savant i/by Prabhakar M. Jadhav for Respondent No. 1 and
     2.

                                         Coram : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

Date : 18th FEBRUARY, 2021

P.C.:

1. Heard respective Counsel.

2. The suit being Special Civil Suit No.2225 of 2009 for

specific performance at the behest of Respondent- decree holder was

decreed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune by judgment

and order dated 7th April, 2011. I am informed that said decree was

confirmed upto the Apex Court as the judgment-debtor remained

unsuccessful throughout.

Dusane 2/4 6 wp 4853.17 aw caw 560.doc

3. In Special Darkhast No. 148 of 2018, one of the judgment

debtors raised an objection for execution of the decree of specific

performance dated 7th April, 2011 passed in Special Civil Suit No. 2225

of 2009 contending that the suit property has been attached by the

Income-Tax Authorities. Hence decree-holder be restrained from

transferring the suit property. The said issue came to be decided by the

learned executing Court, which order at the behest of the Petitioner was

confirmed upto the Apex Court in Petition(s) for Special Leave to

Appeal (C ) No.4684 of 2015.

4. In the aforesaid backdrop, the Petitioner, one of the

judgment debtor moved similar application, Exhibit 60, praying that the

property cannot be transferred, which was rejected vide order

impugned.

5. The submissions are, once the property is under attachment

of the Income-Tax Department, the same cannot be subject matter of

the execution proceedings.

Dusane 3/4 6 wp 4853.17 aw caw 560.doc

6. I have appreciated the aforesaid contentions in the

backdrop of the fact that the decree was confirmed against the

Petitioner upto the Apex Court.

7. Admittedly, the Income-Tax Department has intervened as

an objector in the execution proceedings.

8. The Petitioner- Judgment debtor for one or the other reason

has not permitted the decree holder to execute the decree for last more

than 10 years, which has prompted the Respondent to claim exemplary

costs from the Petitioner.

9. From the aforesaid narrations, it is aptly clear that from one

or the other reason judgment debtor is taking out objections in the

execution proceedings so as to delay the execution of the decree. This

Court is required to be sensitive to the fact that the decree passed by

the trial Court was confirmed upto the Supreme Court. In the aforesaid

background, no case for interference is made out. The petition fails,

stands dismissed with costs of Rs.15,000/- to be deposited by the

Dusane 4/4 6 wp 4853.17 aw caw 560.doc

Petitioner/ Judgment debtor in the executing Court, within a period of

four weeks from today.

10. The deposit of costs shall be a condition precedent for

taking out any other proceedings against the decree-holder.

11. In view of dismissal of the Writ Petition, the Civil

Application does not survive, the same is accordingly disposed of.

( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )