IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 510 OF 2007 MASURASHRAM THROUGH PRESIDENT PANDURANG RAMA KUNKOLIENKAR AND ANR., ... Petitioners Versus SHRI. PURSHOTTAM MUKUND KAMAT THROUGH LR'S AND 6 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. D. Pangam, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.G. Bhobe, advocate for respondent no.1(b). Mr. S.D. Lotlikar, Senior advocate for respondents nos. 1(e) and 1(f). Mr. A. Kansar, advocate for respodnent nos.1(a),(c) and (d). Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 15th December, 2010 P.C: By this petition, the petitioners challenges order dated 11/09/2007 passed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Divn.,Panaji, in Execution Application no.31/2002/A by which the Executing Court ordered that the impugned decree would have to be executed. 2. Perusal of the record discloses that the petitioners who are the Judgment Debtors did not challenge the decree passed by the Trial Court granting reliefs of mandatory and permanent injunction, which was ex parte. In the Execution Application the petitioners filed objections. However, for a considerable length of time the petitioners did not appear before the Executing court. Ultimately, on 11/9/2007, the Executing Court passed an order directing execution of the decree as sought for by the Decree Holders. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and the respondents, I find that this is not a fit case in which this Court should exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. If the petitioners were serious to proceed with the objections taken by them, they ought to have appeared before the Executing Court. Their conduct in remaining absent before the Executing Court for a considerable length of time clearly disqualifies them from seeking any extraordinary and discretionary remedy from this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. In the result therefore I do not find any ground for interference with the impugned order. Hence, the petition is dismissed. A. P. LAVANDE, J. ap/-