(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Writ Petition No. 3991 of 2009 1. Smt. Jamilabi Jahangirali Musalman, 2. Smt. Khubabi w/o. Majidkha Musalman, 3. Smt. Rajiyabi d/o. Hussain Musalman. .. Petitioners. versus Mr. Rajjak Kadar Musalman, Dead through L.Rs. : 1. Abdul Mutalik Rajjak Musalman, 2. Abdul Nabi Abdul Rajjak, 3. Smt. Fatmabi Yakubkha, 4. Kurshatbi Kafiyatali, 5. Jamshadbi Salauddin, 6. Shamshadbee Yunuskha. .. Respondents. .................. Mr. P.S. Shendurnikar, Advocate, for the petitioners. .................. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 16TH JULY 2009. COURT’S ORDER : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 16th August 2008, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Erandol, below Exhibit 34 in Regular Darkhast No. 4/2006, thereby rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner (2) no.1 (original defendant no.3) objecting to the execution of the decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 160/1979. 2. It was the contention of the petitioner, that the decree which was put in execution was passed in contravention of the provisions of Hindu Law. It has further been contended that some of the parties, who were necessary parties, were not parties in the said proceedings. 3. In so far as the first objection is concerned, it can be seen that the parties to the proceedings are not Hindu. In any case, the decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 160/1979 has been confirmed up to the Supreme Court. As such, the said objection is without substance. In so far as the contention, that some of the necessary parties were not before the court which passed the decree, is concerned, the objection is not raised by the so called persons. The only locus for taking this objection would be to such of the persons who claim that they were necessary parties and that the decree has been passed without impleading them. 4. In that view of the matter, no perversity could be found with the approach adopted by the executing court, so as to warrant interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Petition is, therefore, dismissed. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE bgp/wp3991