1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR C.A.C.NO.52 OF 2009 IN CRA ST.NO.16093 OF 2009. Abdul Rafique s/o Abdul Mujib Qureshi ..vs.. Madhukar Vitthalrao Bode =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- C ORAM : C.L.PANGARKAR, J. DATED : 10th December, 2009. Heard Mr.M.P.Khajanchi, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.Sharad Ghate, learned counsel for the respondent. A decree was passed in Civil Appeal No.29 of 2007. It was directed to the decree-holder to deposit a sum of Rs. 95000/- and to obtain 'No objection Certificate' from the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority, Nagpur (MHADA) before a sale-deed could be executed in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had filed, in pursuance to this decree an execution proceedings before the court. The defendant/judgment debtor raised an objection that the decree cannot be executed because the permission from the MHADA has not been obtained. 2 The said contention was rejected by the executing court. Against that order, the judgment-debtor preferred an appeal before the District Judge. When appeal came up for hearing, it was found that the appeal was not maintainable before the District Judge and revision ought to have been filed in the High Court. Order 43 of C.P.C. makes clear that the appeal could not lie against an order passed on an objection under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that a revision could lie because had the decision been given in his favour, the execution application would have itself been dismissed. He submits that the Judgment-debtor was, therefore, bona fide prosecuting the appeal before the court having no jurisdiction and he has, after realising the mistake immediately filed this revision. The delay is therefore condoned. The learned counsel for the respondent brings to my notice certain facts in his reply to this application, wherein it is stated that the decree has already been executed. The question is as to whether this revision has become infructuous, would be heard at the time of the admission of the revision. List the revision for admission on 12/01/2010. JUDGE. chute 3