IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Writ Petition No. 6775 of 2009 Syed Mazhar s/o Syed Noor, Aged 45 years, Occupation Agriculture, Resident of Abdimandi, Daulatabad, Taluka and District Aurangabad Petitioners V E R S U S Qamrunissa Begum w/o Shaikh Mohd Nabi, Aged 39 years, Occupation Nil, Resident of Daulatabad and at present Near Golden Medicalwala’s House, at Partur, District Jalna Respondent Mr. S.D. Hiwrekar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Mustaba G. Mustafa, Advocate for the respondent CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 22nd June, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition challenges order dated 12th June, 2009, passed by the learned District Judge – 3, Aurangabad in M.C.A.No. 59 of 2008 confirming the order dated 24th March, 2008, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Aurangabad, in MARJI No. 145 of 1998. By an order dated 24th March, 2008, the trial Court vacated the exparte interim order granted on 4th March, 2008. The appellate Court dismissed M.C.A.No. 59 of 2008 confirming the said order. ( 2 ) 2. Notice in this matter was issued on 17th December, 2009. In response to the notice, learned counsel Shri. Mustafa appeares for the respondent. The learned counsel for the parties submit that the matter can be finally decided at the stage of admission. Hence, Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned counsels. 3. The Decree Holder No.1 filed execution proceedings bearing R.D.No. 86 of 1997 for execution of the Judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 582 of 1985 on 21st August, 1987. The petitioners, who are Judgment Debtors, filed application, which was registered as MARJI No. 145 of 1998 as an objection. An application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code was also filed restraining the Decree Holder from taking possession or interfering with the share of the petitioners / objectors, in Gut No. 75 ( New Gut No. 29), situated at Abdimandi Aurangabad. The trial Court passed order dated 4th March, 2008 restraining the Decree Holder from interfering with the possession of the petitioner. However, by an order dated 24th March, 2008, the said order of injunction was vacated. It is not in dispute that no reasons are recorded by the trial Court while vacating the order of injunction. The appellate Court although considered merits of the matter, recorded the finding that the trial Court has not recorded any reasons for vacating the order of injunction. Both the Courts below have however noted the conduct of the objectors in avoiding to participate in the proceedings. 4. In view of the aforesaid position, the learned counsel for the ( 3 ) parties admit that MARJI No. 145 of 1998 alongwith R.D. No. 86 of 1997 can be finally decided within stipulated period. Till then, it is agreed that the possession of the petitioners shall not be disturbed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, after taking instructions from his client, who is present in Court, makes a statement that full co-operation shall be extended for early disposal of the matter. The counsels inform that the matter is fixed on 3rd July, 2010. Since the execution is pending since 1997, the trial Court is directed to decide R.D. No. 86 of 1997 and MARJI No. 145 of 1998 within a period of three months. The objectors shall make themselves available on every date of hearing before the trial Court including the first date i. e. 1st July, 2010. If the matter is required to be adjourned at the instance of objectors and if on that count it is not concluded within a period of three months, then the objectors shall have to pay costs of Rs.10,000/-, to the Decree Holder, within one month from the date of conclusion of proceedings. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs. ( R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ) srm/WP/6775/09