(1) WP. 3009.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3009 OF 2010 Padmabai w/o Pandharinath Choudhari .. Petitioner VERSUS Omkarprasad s/o Fattechand Sharma through G.P.A. Matadin Khairatimal Joshi .. Respondent Mr. S.S. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. D.B. Pawar, Advocate for the respondent ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 14TH JUNE, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1] Heard learned counsel. The petitioner judgment debtor challenges order dated 22.2.2010 whereby, the executing Court directed the issuance of jangam warrant. 2] Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the general power of attorney had no authority to file the execution application and he malafidely made false statements. It is also argued that list of the movable articles was not furnished and therefore, general order recording attachment ought not have been passed. (2) WP. 3009.2010 3] It appears that no say was filed by the petitioner on the application submitted by the general power of attorney of the decree holder. The decree is for recovery of money. The general power of attorney holder has filed copy of the power of attorney executed by the decree holder. The decree holder could have objected to the maintainability of the execution application. The issuance of jangam warrant is therefore, proper and legal. However, since no say was filed, the executing Court did not consider requirement of giving list of movables. The executing Court may issue warrant only after the list of movable articles is furnished by the respondent. 4] With these observations, the Petition is disposed of. The amount deposited in this Court shall be transferred to the executing Court. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp