Bombay High Court
WP/1147/2024 of ANIL KUMAR TRIPATHI Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS on 14 October 2026
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1147 OF 2024 Anil Kumar Tripathi .... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .... Respondents Mr. P.V. Dhopatkar, Advocate for Petitioner. Y.S. Kochare ‘B’ Panel Counsel a /w AGP, S.R. Crasto, for
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1147 OF 2024
Anil Kumar Tripathi
....
Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
....
Respondents
Mr. P.V. Dhopatkar, Advocate for Petitioner.
Y.S. Kochare ‘B’ Panel Counsel a/w AGP, S.R. Crasto, for Respondent –
State.
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
DATE : 14th October 2026
P.C. :
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard the learned Counsel.
2. Having perused the orders passed by both the Courts below, it appears that the Petitioner has obtained a decree against Defendant No. 1. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, Defendant No.1 passed away, and the Petitioner sought to delete his name from the execution proceedings. However, the wife and daughter of the deceased Defendant No.1 filed an application seeking to be impleaded as parties to the execution proceedings.
3. The Petitioner cannot proceed with the execution of the decree merely by seeking deletion of the name of Defendant No.1, particularly when
4 WP 1147.2024.doc Dusane persons claiming to be his legal heirs, namely, his widow and daughter, are available and have sought impleadment in the execution proceedings. In the circumstances, no error can be found in the orders passed by both the Courts below.
4. The Petitioner contends that the Respondents are neither the widow nor the daughter of Defendant No.1. The Petitioner is at liberty to place such material on record during the course of the execution proceedings as may be necessary to dispute their status as legal heirs of the deceased Defendant No.1. However, at this stage, the claim of the Respondents cannot be rejected in limine, particularly when the Courts below have taken note of their claim and the circumstances supporting their impleadment.
5. In view of the aforesaid discussion, no error can be found in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. [ ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. ]
4 WP 1147.2024.doc Dusane