1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8025 OF 2009 Dharmaraj s/o. Apparao Patte ....Petitioner. Versus Madhukar s/o. Arjun Waghmode & Ors. ....Respondents. Mr.A.G. Dalal h/f. Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Dhananjay Deshpande, Advocate for respondent No. 1. CORAM : A.A.SAYED, J. DATED : 16th December, 2010. PER COURT : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner who was the original defendant No. 1 in R.C.S.No. 83/2001, has challenged the order dated 13th January 2009 whereby the application at Exh. 56 preferred by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 under Order 39, Rule 2-A of Civil Procedure Code against the petitioner/original defendant Nos. 1 and 2, came to be allowed and it was directed that the properties of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (Original petitioner and respondent No. 2 herein, respectively) be attached for the period of three months in consequence of disobedience or breach of the order dated 20th February 2001 passed below Exh. 7. 2 2. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submitted that the impugned order has already been executed and the three months as stated in the order has expired and therefore, the petition is infructuous. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner however submits that the order dated 13th January 2009 was an erroneous order and that the petitioner had not committed any breach of the order and the petitioner had only entered into the agreement of sale and not alienated the property as such. Be that as it may, in my view, it is not now necessary to go into the legality or validity of the impugned order, since the impugned order already stands executed. 4. In the circumstances, the petition is disposed of as infructuous without expressing any opinion on the legality or validity of the impugned order. [ A. A. SAYED, J. ] ssc/wp8025.09