1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4458 OF 2008 Shri Laxminarayan Partisthan ...Petitioner Versus Keshav s/o Punja Musmade & Ors ...Respondents ..... Mr. R.R. Karpe, advocate for the petitioner Mr. P.S. Pawar h/f Mr. R.K. Temkar, advocate for respondent No.1 Mr. J.S. Gavane, AGP for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 3RD AUGUST, 2009 PER COURT:- 1 This petition is filed challenging the order dated 18.6.2008 passed by the learned C.J.S.D. at Ahmednagar in Execution petition No. 11 of 2008, on an application below Exh.8 wherein the order of issuance of warrant of attachment and sale of immovable assets of the petitioner, has been ordered. 2 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has invited my attention to Exh.B page 19 and submitted that the said application prays for attachment, sale and recovery of the petitioner's property and 2 the said application, without issuance notice to the petitioners, learned Judge has allowed on 18.6.2008. According to learned counsel, the order passed by the executing Court is substantially affects the right of the petitioner and consequence of the said order would be attaching the property, sale and recovery. According to the learned counsel, the said order is passed without hearing the petitioner and therefore, the said order is not sustainable, and thus the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3 Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 submits that notice of execution petition was served on the petitioner. He has filed Vaklatnama and he was expected to attend the hearing fixed by the executing Court. As per submission of the learned counsel for respondent No.1, this Court may not interfere in the impugned order and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and the learned AGP for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing immediately. 5 On perusal of the contents of the application and order passed thereon, it appears that the application prays for substantial relief and the said application was allowed on the same day, that itself disclose 3 that no notice was issued to the petitioner in the said application. It may be noted that, when an interlocutory application was filed in the proceeding and more particularly praying for substantial relief, it was incumbent on the part of concerned Judge to issue notice to the petitioner and pass order only after hearing the affected parties. Therefore, in my considered view, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside and accordingly the same is set aside. In case the executing court wish to entertain such application, it can do so after giving due notice to the respective parties to the executing proceeding and pass necessary orders. Writ petition is allowed. Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause “B”. Writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. *****