1 W.P.No.5835/10 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.5835 OF 2010. Pandharinath S/o Ramchandra Dhoble, Age 51 years, Occ.Business, R/o Omerga (Retu), Tq. Jalkot, District Latur. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. Ramesh S/o Gopalrao Chole, Age 47 years, Occ.Service and Agri., R/o Kolnur, Tq.Jalkot, Dist.Latur. 2. Rajkumar S/o Kerba Gaikwad, Age 37 years,Occ.Driver, R/o Omerga (Retu), Tq. Jalkot, Dist.Latur. ... Respondents. ... Mr.Pratap G. Rodge, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.V.Mundhe, advocate for the Respondent No.1. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 13.06.2011. 2 W.P.No.5835/10 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, passed an award against the present petitioner and the driver. Pursuant to the award, the present Respondents filed an execution proceeding. The present petitioner filed an application seeking time to file objection to the proclamation. The said application is rejected by the Tribunal. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed. 4. Mr.Rodge, learned counsel submits that in fact, a reasonable request was made for granting accommodation to file objection and produce on record some document. The same should have been granted by the Tribunal. The petitioner sought to bring on record the anomalies in an application for issuance of 3 W.P.No.5835/10 proclamation and the proclamation for auction sale of the property. The Tribunal rejected the said application on a technical ground. 5. Mr.Mundhe, learned counsel submits that same request was made before the Tribunal. The application was filed only to prolong the matter. The petitioner does not deserve any grant of time. The petitioner was not prevented from filing objection but just to protract the matter, filed the application for seeking time. The Tribunal has rightly rejected the same. 6. Vide the present application, the petitioner had sought time to file say. The learned counsel for respective parties submit that the auction has not yet taken place. Mr.Rodge, learned counsel submits that he would file objection within a period of one week to the said proclamation. The petitioner has already got more than a year during the pendency of the petition. As such the petitioner now would not deserve any time for production of any documents though the said order can not be faulted with, 4 W.P.No.5835/10 still, with a view to give opportunity to the petitioner, the petitioner is allowed to file objection to the proclamation under Order 21 Rule 66 of the C.P.C. as desired by him within a period of one week from today. 7. The Writ Petition is disposed of with above directions. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp5835.10