-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.287 of 2008 1. Mr.Vashdev Gurnomal Rohra and another ..Petitioners vs. Mr.Omprakash Gurnomal Rohra ..Respondent Shri A.Y.Sakhare, Sr.Advocate i/b Shri Siddharth Karpe for petitioners. Shri J.S.Chandnani for respondent. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. 4th February, 2008 4th February, 2008 4th February, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. This writ petition is challenging the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune on 22nd October, 2007 on applications below Exh.35 and 36. 2. There is a proceeding pending before the Court below in the form of Darkhast No.124 of 2006 which is for execution of the Award and, therefore, the application for execution of the Award was filed, more particularly in terms of the liberty granted by this Csourt in the order passed in Writ Petition No. l824 of 2006 dated 23rd February, 2006. 3. The Direction that was sought by the decree -2- holder to the petitioner/judgment debtor is to produce the original award. An order was passed on 15th September, 2006 and direction was issued to the petitioner to produce the original award. The prayer for review of the order has been rejected on 30th March, 2007. 4. However, substantive application (Exh.35), it appears, was not disposed of by order dated 30th March, 2007. The application (Exh.35) prayed for a direction that the execution procededing itself may be deregistered. That is the application by the petitioners who are judgment debtors and proceeds on the basis that the application for execution being filed without filing the certified copy of the Award in terms of the Rules for execution, such an application cannot be entertained and must be dismissed. 5. Reply of the respondent/decree holder to this application was also taken on record. In reply, it was stated that there is an affidavit of the Notary Shri N.T.Adwani who has stated on oath that the original award is taken away by the judgment debtor. It is in these circumstances and taking disadvantage of the -3- handicap of the decree holder that such an application has been made. 6. By the impugned order the said application has been rejected. 7. I have heard Shri Sakhare, the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner/judgment debtor and Shri Chandnani appearing for the decree holder on notice. The Court below has relied upon the affidavit of the Notary so also the earlier order of the Court taking note of the fact that the documdents are with the petitioners/judgment debtors before me. The decree holder has filed a copy of the Award and has specifically stated that the original is not in is possession. That aspect with regard to the original document being with the judgment debtor has also been noted in this Court’s order. In such circumstances, request to deregister the execution proceedings has been refused. In my view, there is no error apparent on the face of record or any perversity so as to call for interference in this order and direction. In the peculiar facts of this case, considering the earlier order and liberty granted by this Court, the Additional Sessions -4- Judge was right in rejecting the application made by the petitioners/judgment debtors Exh.35. In my discretionary jurisdiction as well this is not a fit case to interfere. The petition is dismissed. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)