: 1 : chs-62-11=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 62 OF 2011 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 720 OF 2010 Manish Mahal CHS Ltd. .. Org. Disputant v/s. Manish Developers & Ors. .. Respondents And Vishwas Pandurang Shinde .. Applicant ......... Dr. K.K. Khanna for the decree holder. Mr. Asaf Ali i/b Mr. A. Siddiquie & Associates for the applicant ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 31st JANUARY, 2011 P.C. : 1. Heard learned Counsel on both sides. Perused order dated 9th July, 2009. Learned Judge of the Co-operative Court in dispute Case No.CC-VI/382/94 directed the present applicant Mr. Viswas P. Shinde to deposit in the Court Rs.8 lakh within a period of two months from 9th July, 2009. Present applicant Mr. Viswas Shinde carried the matter to the appellate Court by filing the Revision Application No.78 of 2009. That Revision Application was dismissed by order dated 23rd June, 2010 thereby confirming the order dated 9th July, 2009. The present : 2 : chs-62-11=.sxw applicant carried the matter to this Court by filing Writ Petition No.2102 of 2010. The learned single Judge of this Court while deciding the said Writ Petition passed order dated 13th October, 2010 and as a result of the said order which was passed by consent, the learned Judge of the Co-operative Court was directed to decide the main dispute and a reading of the said order goes to show that the order of deposit of Rs.8 lakh was set aside. 2. It is noticed that the present respondent i.e. the Society before the learned Judge of the Co-operative Court had filed Execution Application No.720 of 2010 for execution of order dated 9th July, 2009. The office of the Prothonotary and Senior Master issued warrant of attachment dated 27th October, 2010 for attachment of certain properties etc. The warrant of attachment came to be levied and certain properties were attached. Bailiff’s report is on record. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant contended that on account of order dated 13th October 2010, office could not have issued warrant of attachment dated 27th October, 2010 and consequently the attachment of certain properties is improper and therefore same be raised. 4. Learned Counsel Dr. Khanna on behalf of the Judgment Creditor : 3 : chs-62-11=.sxw indicated that the learned Judge of the Co-operative Court has passed order dated 7th January, 2011 and has directed the present applicant to deposit certain amount and the whole dispute has been decided by the learned Jude on merits. He contended that the attachment has been rightly done as the dispute is over. 5. I have considered the record. Effect of order dated 9th July, 2009 is set aside. Consequently, Execution Application No.720 of 2010 could not have been taken ahead. It appears that office was not knowing about order dated 13th October, 2010. Hence, office issued warrant of attachment dated 27th October, 2010. The said warrant of attachment was taken ahead and certain properties came to be attached. If the order dated 9th July, 2009 came to an end by order dated 13th October, 2010, there is no question of Execution Application No.720 of 2010 going ahead. In view of the above, warrant of attachment on the properties set out in the chamber summons and in particular prayer clause (a) will have to be set aside and that Execution Application No. 720 of 2010 is also required to be dismissed. 6. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, following order is passed. : 4 : chs-62-11=.sxw ORDER (i) Chamber Summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). (ii) The claimants to pay poundage charges as per the Rule within 15 days from today. (iii) Execution Application No.720 of 2010 stands dismissed as it as become infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)