(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 9134 OF 2010 WITH M/s. Sitson India Pvt. Ltd., MIDC, Phase-II, Dombiwali (E), District : Thane, through its Authorized officer. .. Petitioner versus 1. Fakirabai w/o. Ashikbhai Merchant, the Power of Attorney Holder of Ashikbhai Sultanali Merchant, R/o. Dondaecha, Taluka : Sindhkheda, District : Dhule. 2. The Collector, Dhule, and Liquidator of Sindhkheda Sahkari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Vikhurli, Taluka : Sindhkheda, District : Dhule. .. Respondents. ....................... (2) WRIT PETITION NO. 9135 OF 2010 M/s. Sitson India Pvt. Ltd., MIDC, Phase-II, Dombiwali (E), District : Thane, through its Authorized officer. .. Petitioner versus 1. Dr. A.Z. Jinwala, the Power of Attorney Holder of Ashikbhai Sultanali Merchant, R/o. Dondaecha, Taluka : Sindhkheda, District : Dhule. 2. The Collector, Dhule, and Liquidator of Sindhkheda Sahkari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Vikhurli, Taluka : Sindhkheda, District : Dhule. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate, for the petitioner in both petitions. Mr. J.R. Shah, Advocate, for respondent no.1 in both petitions. Mr. D.R. Korde, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.2 in both petitions. ........................ (3) CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 3RD MAY 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard Adv. S.T. Shelke, for the petitioner; Adv. Mr. J.R. Shah, for respondent no.1, and learned AGP Mr. D.R. Korde, for respondent no.2. 2. Orders impugned in these petitions are passed on applications under Order XXI Rule 54 of CPC. The said applications have been filed on 24th September 2008, pointing out an earlier order dated 18th June 2008 and attachment is in response thereto. It is, therefore, apparent that attachment ordered accordingly on 21-7-2010 is consequential. 3. Perusal of order dated 18-6-2008 passed below Exhibit 60 shows that the executing court has found that amount of Rs. 5,45,626/- is recoverable from Garnishi i.e. present petitioner. That order has not been questioned anywhere by the petitioner and, thus, has attained finality. In any case, under the provisions of Order XXI Rule 46H CPC, or then Rule 46(K), Bombay amendment, the remedy of filing appeal, against the order dated 18-6-2008, is available to the petitioner. That (4) remedy has not been exhausted so far. 4. In this situation, challenge to consequential orders in Writ Petitions is misconceived. The petitioner ought to have challenged order dated 18-6-2008 in accordance with law. Even today, the petitioner can take appropriate steps in that respect, if the petitioner is so advised. 5. Petitions are, therefore, dismissed. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp9134