1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.882 OF 2011 (BHAGWAN N. BHISE..VS..SMT. INDUBAI V. AAROO & OTH.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr.R.S.Kurekar, Advocate for Petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 21, 2011. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. By this petitioner the petitioner impugns the order passed by the executing Court on 13.12.2010 below Exh.10, rejecting the objection raised by the petitioner under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the impugned order dated 13.12.2010, it appears that the executing Court was perfectly justified in rejecting the objection filed by the petitioner as the objection raised by the petitioner under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure was a frivolous one. The objection merely mentions that the Regular Darkhast was not tenable against the judgment debtor as the property did not stand in the name of the Judgment Debtor at the relevant time. It is necessary to note that the Judgment Debtor / petitioner has not taken such a stand either before the first appellate Court or the second appellate Court while challenging the decree passed against him. Since the objection was misconceived 2 the same was rightly rejected by the executing Court by the impugned order dated 13.12.2010. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RR..