1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8612 OF 2009 Shakuntalabai w/o. Barikrao Jadhav and others. .. petitioners Versus Baburao s/o. Bhaurao Jadhav .. Respondent. --- Mr. K.F. Shingare, Advocate for petitioner. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI,J. DATE : 17th December, 2009. ORAL ORDER :- 1] By way of present petition, the petitioners challenges the order dated 17th November, 2009 vide which the application filed by the present petitioners for dropping the execution proceedings against them, came to be rejected. 2] The respondent/plaintiff had filed RCS No. 219/1994, for a decree of perpetual injunction. The said suit was decreed and the decree was 2 confirmed up to this court. The proceeding for execution of the decree were initiated vide R.D. No. 15/2007 by the respondent decree holder. However, the Executing court, vide order dated 24th April, 2009 has directed an affidavit to be filed in the nature of evidence. Contending that since the decree holder had not complied with the aforesaid direction an application came to be filed for dropping the execution proceedings. The said application is rejected. Hence, the present petition. 3] The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the provisions of Order 10 Rule 4 of CPC, Order 15 Rule 4 and Order 16 Rule 20, in support of the proposition that the proceedings were liable to be dropped for non- compliance with the orders passed by the learned Executing Court. Perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the learned executing court has rejected the application filed by the present petitioner observing that when a decree is passed by the competent court, the same is biding upon the judgment debtor. No perversity could be noticed with the approach adopted to warrant interference in the extraordinary jurisdiction under article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition is rejected. [B.R. GAVAI,J.] Grt/- 3