1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.155 OF 2010 RAJENDRA SHAMRAOJI KUMBHARE & ONE ANOTHER ..VS.. RAJENDRA KRUSHNARAO MAMULKAR & ORS =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- C ORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK,J. DATED : 15th June, 2010. Heard Shri Doifode, the learned advocate for the appellant. The appellant was the objector before the executing court in R.D. No.103/2008. The objection filed by the objector/ judgment debtor under order 21 rule 97 read with section 47 of C.P.C. was dismissed by the executing court. The appeal filed by the objector against the order passed by the executing court on 22.7.2009 rejecting the objection was also dismissed by the District Judge -10 Nagpur. The appellant was the respondent in the proceedings filed by the decree holder before the Cooperative Court. It was the case of the decree holder before the Cooperative Court that the sale deed executed by the society in favour of the decree- holder was valid and the subsequent one, executed in favour fo the objector / appellant was liable to be set aside. The Cooperative Court held that the respondent/ decree holder had proved his title to the property,in pursuance of the registered sale deed executed by the society in favour of the decree holder. The Cooperative Court held that the 2 appellant/ objector, could not have claimed title to the disputed suit property on the basis of the sale deed which was executed subsequently, The appeal preferred by the objector before the Cooperative Court was dismissed, so also the writ petition field by the objector against the order passed by the cooperative court and the cooperative appellate court was also dismissed by the High Court on 29.10.2007. The decree holder sought for the execution of the decree. Before the executing court, the appellant filed an objection that he became a leasee of the property in view of the lease deed executed by the N.I.T. in his favour on 16.4.2008. The appellant sought for the dismissal of the R.D.No.103/2010. The executing court on an appreciation of the objection and the reply filed thereto by the decree holder as well as the N.I.T. rejected the objection filed by the appellant. The appeal filed by the objector against the rejection of the objection was also dismissed by the District Judge. Both these orders are challenged by this second appeal. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of both the orders, it is clear that the executing court and the appellate court did not commit any error in rejecting the objection of the appellant. It is necessary to note that the order passed by the cooperative court in favour of the decree holder was confirmed by this court by dismissing the writ petition and in such circumstances, the respondent/ decree holder sought for the execution of the decree. The courts observed that the appellant/objector had not disclosed to the N.I.T. about the pendency of the civil dispute between the parties. The said fact was not disclosed, though the objector filed an application before the N.I.T. for execution of lease deed in his favour. The N.I.T. also filed a reply before the executing court and stated therein that the objector had never disclosed to the N.I.T. about the pendency of the civil suit between the objector and the decree holder 3 and the N.I.T. had initiated proceedings against the objector for cancellation of lease deed in favour of the appellant for non disclosure of the relevant facts. The courts observed that the lease deed was executed after the judgment waspassed by the cooperative court in appeal and dismissal of writ petition and hence the objector could not have relied on the lease deed which was executed in his favour during the pendency of the execution proceedings. The findings recorded by both the courts are based on a proper appreciation of the documents on record. They do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The second appeal therefore, fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP