1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 3697/2008 (Parmeshwardayal Ramphal Pande VERSUS Dr. Surendra Babulal Patel & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri R.L. Khapre, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Anjan De, counsel for the R-1. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 18, 2009. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned order dated 11.03.2008. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Achalpur did not commit any error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act. The Executing Court rightly held that the application was not tenable. It is necessary to note that the petitioner was the power of attorney holder for the judgment debtor in the civil suit and was clearly aware about the original civil suit pending between the parties and the decision in the same. The provisions of Order XXI Rule 97, 100, 101 & 103 would not be applicable to the facts of this case though it is the case of the petitioner that they should be made applicable to the same. 2 There is no infirmity in the order passed by the Executing Court holding that the application under Section 22 was not tenable in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE