M/S. MOHINI RESORTS PVT. LTD. v. SHANKAR GODAJI GORE AND ANR.
Impleadment in Execution Proceedings: Lack of Locus Standi Due to Prior Family Settlement and Representation.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:14
Decision Date: 05-01-2026
List of Laws
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order XXI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Lunacy Act (Implied)
- Facts: M/s. Mohini Resorts Pvt. Ltd. filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Small Causes Court, Pune, which allowed an application for impleadment in execution proceedings. The petitioner is the decree holder seeking to execute decrees dating back to 1968. Respondent No. 2, Asha Patankar, claimed to be a legal heir with an interest in the property under execution, stemming from a complex family history involving mortgages, leases, sub-leases, a lunacy proceeding, and a family settlement. The petitioner argued that Asha Patankar had no independent right in the property, as her interests were represented in prior proceedings and the property now belongs to the branch of Vasudeo Vaidya.
- Procedural Posture: This case is a Writ Petition filed in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, challenging the order of the Small Causes Court, Pune, which allowed the impleadment of Respondent No. 2 in execution proceedings. The petition was heard at the stage of admission by consent of the parties.
- Issue: Did the Small Causes Court err in allowing the impleadment of Respondent No. 2, Asha Patankar, in the execution proceedings, considering the prior family arrangements, representation in earlier proceedings, and the petitioner's rights derived from a transaction with Vasudeo Vaidya? Does Respondent No. 2 have the locus standi to intervene in the execution proceedings?
- Holding: Yes, the High Court held that the Small Causes Court's order was unsustainable in law and quashed it. The Writ Petition was allowed.
- Reasoning: The High Court found that Asha Patankar's nexus with the suit property in the execution proceedings was not established. The Court emphasized that Asha Patankar was duly represented by her father in prior District Court proceedings where a family arrangement was worked out, and the suit property was allotted to the branch of Vasudeo Vaidya. The decree being executed was obtained by the petitioner through a transaction with Vasudeo Vaidya, establishing a lack of direct connection between Asha Patankar and the property under execution. The Court also noted that the family arrangement had been acted upon, and the parties had enjoyed their respective shares for a considerable period. Therefore, Asha Patankar lacked the necessary locus standi to intervene in the execution proceedings. The Court stated, "Once segregation of rights has taken place in the presence of the Court and with mutual consent under the orders of the Court, it is the will of the parties which prevails".
🔒 For Members Only