Mohammad Noor Raj Mohammad Tamboli vs Salabat Khan Ajim Khan Died Thr Lrs ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 7033 Bom

Bombay High Court

Mohammad Noor Raj Mohammad Tamboli vs Salabat Khan Ajim Khan Died Thr Lrs ... on 29 October, 2025

                              1
                                                wp-13006-2025

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

             WRIT PETITION NO.13006 OF 2025
          Mohammad Noor Raj Mohammad Tamboli
                            VERSUS
            Salabat Khan S/o. Ajim Khan Thr L.Rs.
                               .....
Mr. S. S. Rathi, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Sayyed, Advocate for the respondents/Caveators
                               .....
                     CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
                                (Vacation Court)
                    DATED : 29TH OCTOBER, 2025

ORDER :

-

. Mr. S. S. Rathi, learned Advocate for the petitioner has

moved this matter apprehending that in the Regular Darkhast

No.03 of 2021, pending before the learned Civil Judge, Junior

Division, Sengaon, possession warrant is apprehended to be

issued against the petitioner. Mr. Rathi, learned Advocate

would submit that the Regular Civil Suit No.41 of 2005 was

filed by the caveator/respondent no.1 seeking possession of

the subject matter/property from the respondent no.2. It is a

matter of fact that the proceedings are concluded in Second

Appeal No.945 of 2022. The Regular Darkhast No.3 of 2021

has arisen out of the judgment and decree in the Regular Civil

Suit No.41 of 2005 referred above.

wp-13006-2025

2. Mr. Sayyed, learned Advocate for the caveators would

appraise that the said decree in favour of his client is even

confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

3. Mr. S. S. Rathi, learned Advocate would submit that

taking undue advantage of the Diwali vacations, the Darkhast

proceedings were put in motion by the respondents therein

i.e. the caveators, and on 17.10.2025 the application filed by

the decree holders below Exhibit-41 came to be allowed.

Mr. S. S. Rathi, learned Advocate would submit that the

proceedings as have been concluded by the learned Executing

Court could not have been concluded the way those are done.

He would submit that a procedure under Order XXI, Rule 98

and 101 ought to have been complied. He would further

submit that in any case the impugned order could not have

been passed in the given manner.

4. Mr. S. S. Rathi, learned Advocate would further submit

that the petitioner has good case on merits and he can

demonstrate how the impugned order is erroneous.

5. Mr. Sayyed, learned Advocate appearing for the decree

holder/respondent no.1 and their legal representatives would

submit that after long battle, the caveators are now near the

wp-13006-2025

fruits of their litigation, and the order impugned in the Writ

Petition may not be stayed.

6. On query Mr. Sayyed submits that although impugned

order is passed on 17.10.2025, yet the possession warrant is

not issued.

7. Mr. Sayyed, learned Advocate would submit that the

matter be taken on 07.11.2025 to respond the petition. He

further makes statement that the petitioner would not press

for the possession warrant till then.

8. Statement made by Mr. Sayyed, learned Advocate is

taken on record.

9. Place this matter on 07.11.2025.

( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )

Rushikesh/2025