1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3682 OF 2010 Sow Baby w/o Vitthal Shelke .. PETITIONER VERSUS Vithabai w/o Rama Pansare & others .. RESPONDENTS Mr. S.K. Shinde, Advocate for the petitioner. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 23rd APRIL, 2010. PER COURT : 1 Objection tendered by the third party applicant / petitioner herein to the executing court questioning the executability of the decree as against her, has been turned down by the executing court in view of order passed on 25-3-2010. 2 Objector contends that she has purchased the property from Judgment Debtor no. 2 in view of the sale-deed executed on 9-3-2001. There was already decree in respect of handing over possession of the suit property passed against the Judgment Debtor and in favour of the original 2 decree holders, by the trial court in the year 1990. Decree holders proceeded to present execution application in the year 2001 seeking execution of the decree passed by the trial court. Upon gaining knowledge in respect of issuance of warrant, the third party / objector caused appearance in the court objecting the proceeding in execution against her. The executing court investigated into the matter and found that the claim made by the third party applicant that she is the bonafide purchaser of the suit property for value without knowledge of right, title or entitlement of the judgment debtor is not established by her. Execution application presented by decree holder is within the period of limitation. As such, the executing court proceeded to turn down the application raising objection to the executability of the decree. 3 I have perused the impugned order. It transpires on perusal of the order that the third party applicant is resident of the same village. Dispute between the parties was going on since many years. In these circumstances, the executing court observed that the third party applicant, before effecting purchase did not make proper enquiry. The third party applicant also did not issue any public notice in the newspaper nor conducted due enquiry in respect of title of judgment debtor. Considering 3 the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the reasons recorded by the executing court are reasonable and proper. In exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, no interference is called for in the instant petition. Petition therefore stands rejected. 4 In view of dismissal of petition, pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/wp3682.10.odt