1 WP 432/10 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 432 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. U.P. Warunjikar i/b Mr. Shivajirao Masal for the petitioners. Mr. A.P. Garge for respondent no.1. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 13TH JULY 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondent no.1. 2. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 19 December 2009 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division and the order dated 18 July 2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Miraj in Decree Final Application No.15 of 1981. 2 WP 432/10 3. Mr. Garge, learned counsel for the respondent no.1, submitted that the petition is barred by delay and laches and should not be entertained. He points out that the order of the Civil Judge was passed on 18 July 2003 and the present writ petition has been filed on 12 January 2010, i.e. after lapse of more than 6 years. No explanation is offered in the writ petition for the delay and laches. On being asked, leaned counsel for the petitioners was unable to point out any averment in the petition explaining the delay and laches. The writ petition challenging the order of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division dated 18 July 2003 is, therefore liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. 4. As regards the order dated 19 December 2009 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, the grievance is that it was passed in the 3 WP 432/10 proceedings arising out of the order of the Civil Court dated 18 July 2003 referring the matter to the Collector under section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the order dated 18 July 2003 itself was erroneous inasmuch as the previous execution proceedings were disposed of by the Court as fully satisfied vide order dated 16 July 1971 passed in Regular Darkhast No. 9 of 1967 and, therefore, all further orders passed by the Collector and Additional Commissioner were without jurisdiction and erroneous.. Allowing this contention is to indirectly permit the petitioners to challenge the order dated 16 July 2003. As I have already held that such challenge cannot be allowed in view of the delay and laches, this contention cannot be accepted. 4 WP 432/10 5. By the order dated 19 December 2009, the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division had given cogent reasons for setting aside the order passed by the Collector and restored the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. I see no error in the decision of the Commissioner in that regard. The writ petition is accordingly rejected. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)