jpc 1 wp9255-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9255 OF 2011 Ramchandra Pradhan Mariyali ... Petitioner Versus Malkappa Pradhan Mariyali Deceased, by heirs-1A-Smt. Shakuntala Sangappa Kalage and others ... Respondents Mr. N. J. Patil for the petitioner CORAM: R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 13th December, 2011 P.C. : 1. The above petition takes exception to the order dated 2nd July, 2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ichalkaranji by which order the issue of limitation has been decided by the Executing Court. The Executing Court has held that the application filed by the decree holders under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure was beyond the limitation prescribed. 2. It is required to be noted that the decree was passed as long as back in the year 1982. Thereafter execution proceedings were instituted and the matter had reached this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 2078 of 1997. In the said Writ Petition, the decree holders were granted liberty to file a fresh application under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code by an order dated 17th February, 1999. The instant application jpc 2 wp9255-11.sxw has been filed in the year 2005. It is sought to be contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Executing Court has passed the order in the year 2004 and the reliance for the same is placed on the document which is annexed as Exh.B to the petition. In my view, the petitioner cannot rely upon the quote mentioned in the said document, which at the highest only permits the petitioner to take necessary legal steps so that the execution proceedings could proceed further. 3. The fact of the matter is that this Court had granted the decree holders i.e. the petitioners herein, liberty to file an application for removal of obstruction by taking recourse to Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code. The period prescribed for the same is 30 days from the date of obstruction. The application in question has been filed in the year 2005 and no explanation is given for the delay. Therefore, the manner in which the execution is being pursued by the petitioner, is writ large, ex-facie there is indolence, gross negligence and carelessness in prosecuting the said proceedings, a Writ Court therefore, cannot aid such a litigant. In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (R. M. SAVANT, J.)