Sushil Shirish Ostwal vs Lachmandas Bansilal Rathod Died ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 14847 Bom

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          WRIT PETITION NO.10766 OF 2021

Sushil s/o Shirish Ostwal,
Age : 40 years, Occu. Business
R/o Near State Bank, Savedi,
Ahmednagar                                                      PETITIONER

       VERSUS

Lachmandas s/o Bansilal Rathod
(Died through L.Rs. 2 to 4)
Shivshankar s/o Lachmandas Rathod
and others                                                    RESPONDENTS

                                       ----
                  Mr. Amol S. Gandhi, Advocate for the petitioner
                                       ----

                                    CORAM :      MANGESH S. PATIL, J.

                                    DATE   :     11.10.2021


PER COURT :

Heard Mr. A.S. Gandhi, learned Advocate for the petitioner.

Perused the record.

2. It transpires that the petitioner was intending to oppose the

execution proceeding in Regular Darkhast No.216/1982 that was pending

in the court at Ahmednagar. He was not a party to that execution

proceeding but had sought to intervene and had filed an application under

Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was rejected. He then

preferred Writ Petition No.111/2019. While disposing of the said writ

2 WP10766-2021.odt petition, by the judgment and order dated 04.01.2019, this Court granted

him liberty to prosecute his remedies before the Appellate Court. The order

would show that to demonstrate that he was acting bonafide, he was

directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- in the executing court within

a week and subject to such deposit, the order passed in the execution

proceeding on the application (Exh-444) was kept in abeyance for a period

of three weeks. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner deposited the amount,

which is still lying in the executing court. By the impugned order, his

request for refund of the amount is rejected on the sole ground that the

deposit was made pursuant to the order of this Court and there was no

subsequent order permitting him to withdraw it.

3. It also transpires that the execution proceeding is finally

disposed of as fully satisfied by the order dated 16.04.2019 (Exh-D to the

petition).

4. In view of such events, I find no impediment in directing the

executing court to refund the money to the petitioner. The Writ Petition is

allowed in terms of prayer clause (B).

[MANGESH S. PATIL] JUDGE

npj/WP10766-2021.odt