1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 675/2010. Ashish S. Wairagade and another -: versus :- M/s. Bhushan Trading Co. and others Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 16, 2010. Heard Shri N.J. Mohata, learned counsel for petitioners and Shri M.H. Rizwy, learned counsel for respondent no.1/caveator. Petitioners challenge order refusing their objection purportedly under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the execution of a money decree. Petitioner claim that he is son of the deceased partner who expired in 1996 and after his death he became owner of the proportionate share in the immovable property. The petitioner therefore ought to have been joined as party to Civil Suit and also in execution proceedings. It is further urged that the two plots bearing no. W-5 and W-5/5 are consolidated/clubbed together and ignoring this fact the execution has been taken out. Lastly it is alleged that the Executing Court has proceeded under a premise that the predecessor in title of the present petitioners was party to the litigation. It is contended that the objection under Section 47 2 could not have been dismissed in summary manner without recording necessary evidence. Shri Rizwy, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 on the other hand supports the impugned order. I have questioned the learned counsel for petitioner to find out the correct position. Petitioner have not exercised any rights either as owner or co-owner after death of the so called predecessor in 1996. Grievance in relation to consolidation / clubbing of two plots together and determination of market value etc., are relevant and can be agitated by the concerned Partnership Firm against whom money decree has been obtained. Suit in which impugned decree has been obtained is instituted in the year 2004 i.e. 8 years after the death of so called predecessor. In these circumstances, the Executing Court has correctly appreciated the controversy and there is no perversity or jurisdictional error. No case is made out warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is thus dismissed. No cost. JUDGE Rgd.