Arvind Agarwal vs M. V. Petr Dutov And 2 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 5665 Bom

                                                                    4.ia.16375.2022.doc
GANESH
SUBHASH
LOKHANDE                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally signed by
GANESH SUBHASH
LOKHANDE
Date: 2022.06.22
10:45:41 +0530
                                      ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                                      INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 16375 OF 2022
                                                           IN
                                   EXECUTION APPLICATION (L) NO. 3758 OF 2021


                      Dr. Arvind Agarwal                          .. Applicant/Garnisher
                      IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
                      Dr. Arvind Agarwal                          .. Applicant/Garnisher

                                Vs.

                      M.V. Petr Dutov & Ors.                      .. Defendants


                      Mr. Karl Tamboly a/w Aadil Parsurampuria & Siddhesh Pilankar for
                      Applicant.


                                                       CORAM:- B. P. COLABAWALLA,J.

DATE :- JUNE 21, 2022.

P. C.:

1. The above Interim Application has been filed seeking a

condonation of delay in filing the Execution Application.

2. Mr. Karl Tamboly, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the Applicant fairly stated that this application is misconceived because

the Court has no power to condone the delay in filing an Execution

Utkarsh page 1 of 2

4.ia.16375.2022.doc

Application. In other words, he submitted that Section 5 of the

Limitation Act cannot be invoked to condone the delay in filing a

Execution Application. He submitted that in the facts of the present case

the Execution Application is not barred by the law of limitation because

even though the judgment in the above suit was passed on 12 th July,

2002, the decree was only drawn up on 2 nd September, 2009 and the

above Execution Application was lodged on 8th February, 2021. He

submitted that the above Execution Application has been filed within a

period of 12 years as stipulated in Article 136 of the Limitation Act,

1963, and therefore not barred. He therefore sought leave to withdraw

the above Interim Application.

3. In these circumstances, the Interim Application is disposed

of as withdrawn. There shall be no order as to costs.

4. This order will be digitally signed by the Private

Secretary/Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on

production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.

                                       ( B. P. COLABAWALLA, J. )




Utkarsh                                                              page 2 of 2