1 wp-1906.10.sxw lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1906 OF 2010 Maruti Ganpati Shirke (Deceased) Subhadra Maruti Shirke and ors. : Petitioners versus Shantabai Dharmu Shirke and ors. : Respondents. Mr.Balasaheb Deshmukh for the Petitioners. Mr. Shrikant H Yadav for Respondent No.1. CORAM : R M SAVANT, J. DATE : 09th December 2011 P.C. 1 A statement of the Petitioners has been recorded by this Court (A S Oka, J) in the order dated 22/3/2010 to the following effect :­ “The learned counsel for the petitioners on instructions of the petitioners makes a statement that petitioners are bound by the Judgment and Decree passed in R.C.S. No.43 of 1998 passed on 28th June 2000. He states that the petitioners are ready and willing to abide by the said decree and the petitioners have not committed any breach of the said decree for perpetual injunction. Statements are accepted” Later on it was sought to be contended that the said statement was only made, pending the above Petition. Hence the matter was again placed before the same learned Judge who had passed the order dated 22/3/2010. By the subsequent order dated 19th September 2011 it is clarified by the learned Judge ( A S Oka, J) that the said statement was not a qualified statement made by the Petitioners that they will be bound by the Decree only till the disposal of the Petition. The statement therefore was understood to mean that the Petitioners were ready to abide by the decree in question which was passed in 2 wp-1906.10.sxw R.C.S. No.43 of 1998. 2 The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 herein was therefore directed to ascertain as to whether the Petitioners were conducting themselves in accord with the said statement. The learned counsel states today that the statement has been abided by the Petitioners at least till this day. 3 The above Petition arises out of the order passed by the executing Court rejecting the Application filed by the Petitioners under Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure and also the Application for setting aside the attachment and sale. It appears that the property of the Petitioners has been attached in the said execution proceedings. Since the execution proceedings are pending, it would be for the Petitioners to apply for setting aside of the said attachment/sale on the ground that they are ready to abide by the decree passed in R.C.S. No.43 of 1998 as recorded in the order dated 22/3/2010 of this Court. If such an application is filed, needless to say, the Executing Court would consider the same on its own merits and in accordance with law uninfluenced by the impugned order dated 5th January 2010. 4 With the aforesaid observations, the above Writ Petition is disposed of. [R.M.SAVANT, J]