[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 4898 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 4898 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 4898 OF 2007 SHANTAJI HANMANTRAO GHORPADE ... PETITIONER. VS. SATYASHODAK SAHAKARI BANK LTD. ... RESPONDENT. MR. S.R.GANBAVALE FOR THE PETITIONER. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.A.Sayed, J. : A.A.Sayed, J. : A.A.Sayed, J. DATE DATE DATE : February 15, 2008. : February 15, 2008. : February 15, 2008. P.C. 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner/ judgment debtor against the respondent Bank/ decree holder challenging the order dated 15th January, 2007 passed by the learned District Judge, Kolhapur whereby his application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transfer of the execution petition from the file of Jt. Civil Judge, S.D., Kolhapur to any other Court of Senior Division at Kolhapur was rejected. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the said execution petition is filed without obtaining the Certificate under Section 98 of the Co-operative Societies Act. The Truck of the petitioner was attached and sold by the respondent- Bank. According to the petitioner the Truck was sold illegally and the [2] sale proceeds of the said Truck are not deducted from the amount claimed in the execution petition. It is his case that without deducting the said amount, the court had issued warrant of entire amount shown in the execution petition and, therefore, he would not get justice from the said Court and hence had prayed for the transfer of the said execution petition. According to the petitioner, the Presiding Officer i.e. Joint Civil Judge, S.D., Kolhapur is biased against him. The bias is also alleged on the ground that the Presiding Officer is staying in the vicinity of the Bank. 3. The respondent-bank had resisted application of the petition and stated that the petitioner has prolonged the execution petition since 2004 and he has misused the process of the Court. It was contended before the Trial Court that there was an order under Order 21 Rule 43 of the CPC, but the petitioner and his sister, who is an advocate by profession, by adopting different methods are obstructing the execution of the said order. 4. I have perused the impugned order and the material on record. In my view the application of this petitioner was not bona fide and the allegations of bias were unwarranted. Several applications of the petitioner have been rejected already. If the [3] petitioner is aggrieved, he is at liberty to challenge the orders in the higher Courts. The learned Judge has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner and the impugned order cannot be faulted. No case is made out for interference. 5. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. ..... [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, J.] J.] J.]