1 WP 3328/2011 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3328 OF 2011 Annappa Parasappa Dhadsul since deceased through his L.Rs. .. Petitioners V/s Shrinivas Gaibee Kamble & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Nagesh Chavan for the petitioners. Mr. Umesh R. Mankapure for respondent no.1. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 5TH AUGUST 2011 P.C. : 1. The petitioners are legal representatives of the judgment debtor. A decree for possession has been passed against their predecessors on 13th January 1997. In an execution petition, the petitioners were brought on record and a notice of the execution was served on them sometime in October 2010. They applied for adjournment which was granted from time to time and finally as they did not file their say, by an order dated 15th February 2011 the executing Court directed that the execution petition shall proceed without their say. That is the first order which is impugned in this petition. 2 WP 3328/2011 2. Even after directing that the execution would proceed exparte, the trial Court did not proceed with execution forthwith but adjourned it till 1st March 2011. On 1st March 2011, the trial Court directed the issuance of possession warrant in execution of the decree. That is the second order which is impugned in this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners ought to have been granted sufficient opportunity for filing an objection to the execution petition. As stated earlier, the petitioners were served on October 2010 and they were granted adjournment from time to time upto 15th February 2011 to file their say. Thus more than 4 months time was granted to them to file their say and, in my view, the time was adequate. The trial Court committed no error in refusing further time to the petitioners to file their say. Order of issuance of possession warrant is only a consequential order and as no objection was raised for execution of the decree, possession warrant was issued. No error can be found in the order directing issuance of possession warrant. There is no merit in the writ petition which is hereby rejected. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)