mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.81 OF 2008 Manohar Jagannath Pagare Petitioner versus Supriya Ramesh Chandratre Respondent Smita Gaidhani for petitioner. M.M.Sathaye for respondent. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 11th March 2010 PC : 1. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner who is the original plaintiff-decree holder has challenged the order dated 24th April 2006 passed by the Trial Court below application at Exhibit-16 in Regular Darkhast No.18 of 2004. The said Darkhast was filed for execution of the decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.526 of 1995. When Civil Application No.265 of 2010 came up before this Court, the advocate for the petitioner pointed out that the decree passed in the suit which was under execution has been set aside by the Trial Court on the application made by the respondent. The statement is accepted. It is, therefore, obvious that the impugned order dated 24th April 2006 does not survive and the same has become inoperative inasmuch as the same has been passed in the execution application of the decree which has already been set aside. Therefore, it is obvious that the impugned order cannot be executed and implemented. The respondent can always initiate appropriate proceedings against the petitioner for appropriate relief. By keeping the remedies of the parties open, the petition is disposed of with a clarification that the impugned order dated 24th April 2006 has become inoperative. (A.S.OKA, J.)