The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by the widow of one of the judgment debtors, challenging an order passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panaji, in execution proceedings of a decades-old property dispute. Justice Valmiki Menezes, while pronouncing the verdict criticised the petitioner’s conduct as an attempt to stall the execution of a decree that had attained finality after years of litigation, including before the Supreme Court.
The case traces its origin to 1990, when eviction proceedings were initiated. A final decree of eviction was passed in 2009, which was upheld by the District Court (2013), the Bombay High Court (2017), and eventually the Supreme Court (2017), effectively ending the matter on merits. Despite this, the execution proceedings remained pending due to successive applications filed first by the judgment debtor and later by his widow, the present petitioner.
The petitioner claimed rights over the disputed premises on the ground of being the legally wedded wife of the deceased, asserting joint ownership under the Portuguese Civil Code regime of Communion of Assets. However, her initial application (Exhibit D-9), which sought impleadment in the execution proceedings, had already been dismissed in 2022, with the court ruling that her husband had been declared a trespasser and had no legal rights over the property, thereby invalidating her derivative claim.
The petitioner then filed a second application (Exhibit D-19) under Section 47 read with Order XXI Rules 97–105 CPC, again claiming independent possession and rights over the property. This too was rejected by the executing court in April 2024, holding it to be a repetition of previously dismissed claims.
Although the petitioner approached the Supreme Court via a Special Leave Petition, it was dismissed in August 2024, with a mere observation that her Section 47 application should have been decided on merits, an observation the High Court clarified did not amount to setting aside any earlier orders.
The High Court noted that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any independent legal right apart from her deceased husband’s discredited claims. The Court invoked the Supreme Court’s rulings in Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajiv Trust and Periyammal v. V. Rajamani to emphasise that execution proceedings must not be derailed by frivolous objections.
The Court also cited the apex court’s directions in Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi, (1998) 3 SCC 723 and Periyammal v. V. Rajamani, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 507, mandating the timely disposal of execution petitions and holding judicial officers accountable for delays. Finding the present challenge grossly belated and an abuse of process, the Court imposed â‚ą20,000 in costs on the petitioner and directed the executing court to conclude proceedings within one month.
Appearances:
Petitioner: Ms. Arundhati Katju, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gaurish Agni, Mr. Ankur Kumar, Ms. Ritika Meena, Mr. Siddharth Acharya, Ms. Ankeeta Appanna, Mr. Kishan Kavlekar and Mr. Tanvir Khatib.
Respondent: Mr. S.D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Prasheen Lotlikar, Mr. Bhavesh Lotlikar, Mr. Ronak Naik, Mr. P. Hegde, Mr. Sarvesh Sawant and Ms. Priyadarshini Volvoicar, Advocates
