1 Ash IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3367 OF 2010 Sainath Ishwar Mekale & Anr. .. Petitioners. Vs Shripati Namdev Patil & Ors. .. Respondents ­­ Shri S.S. Shah for the Petitioners. ­­ CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 29TH APRIL 2010 P.C: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners who are the decree holders. The 3rd Respondent is the judgment debtor. There is a decree for possession passed in favour of the Petitioners. In execution of the decree, the 1st and the 2nd Respondents had filed an application at Exhibit – 13 stating that a separate application has been preferred by them under Rule 97 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( hereinafter referred to as the said Code ). By the said application, the said Respondents prayed for stay of warrant of possession. A separate application being Misc. Application No.51 of 2009 has been preferred by the 1st and the 2nd Respondents purporting to be an application under Rule 97 of Order XXI of the said Code. By the impugned order, interim relief has been granted in favour of the 1st and the 2nd Respondents. The effect of the impugned order is that the warrant of possession cannot be executed unless the Misc. application No.51 of 2009 made by the 1st and the 2nd Respondents is not decided. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted 2 that the averments made in the application by the 1st and the 2nd Respondents show that the 1st and the 2nd Respondents are claiming through the 3rd Respondent who is a judgment debtor, and therefore, there was no warrant for granting interim relief. 3. I have considered the submissions. As obstruction has been raised by the 1st and the 2nd Respondents by making the aforesaid application, appropriate adjudication will have to be made by the Executing Court in accordance with the scheme of Rules 97, 98 and 101 of Order XXI of the said Code. If the Court is satisfied that the obstruction is caused by the 1st and the 2nd Respondents at the instigation of the 3rd Respondent or that the 1st and the 2nd Respondents are claiming through the 3rd Respondent, sub­rule (2) of Rule 98 of Order XXI of the said Code will take care of such situation. As adjudication will have to be made by the Trial Court, no case is made out for interference. However, the hearing of the application made by the 1st and the 2nd Respondents will have to be expedited. 4. The Writ Petition is disposed of by directing that the Misc. Application No.51 of 2009 shall be decided by the Executing Court as expeditiously as possible and in any event, before the end of September, 2010. All contentions of the Petitioner on the said application are expressly kept open. (A.S.OKA, J)