(1) IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGICAL CIVIL JURISDICTION. ORIGICAL CIVIL JURISDICTION. ORIGICAL CIVIL JURISDICTION. WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 3238 OF 200 PETITION NO. 3238 OF 200 PETITION NO. 3238 OF 2004 Bakul @ Banking Padamshi Dharamshi..... Petitioners. versus Janakalyan Sahakari Bank Ltd. & Ors.... Respondents. ..... Mr. N.Dinkar Rao for the petitioner. Ms. Mamta Sadh i/b. V. Deshpande & Co. for the respondent no.1. ..... CORAM CORAM CORAM ; F.I. REBELLO, J. ; F.I. REBELLO, J. ; F.I. REBELLO, J. DATED; DATED; DATED; 14TH DECEMBER, 2004. 14TH DECEMBER, 2004. 14TH DECEMBER, 2004. P.C.; P.C.; P.C.; 1. Rule. Heard forthwith. 2. The respondent no.1 have an award in their favour. In execution, they attached some property. It is the case of the petitioner that the said property belongs to them. The petitioner thereafter filed case No. CC-1/282 of 2003 for declaration that they are the owners of the property and consequantial relief. That was opposed by the respondent no.1 herein on the ground that co-operative court would have no jurisdiction for reasons set out therein. That objection came to be upheld by order dated 15-3-2004 and consequently (2) dispute as filed by the petitioner herein, was dismissed. 3. The petitioner thereafter has taken out an application in CC-1/369 of 2000, in the proceedings for execution for setting aside the attachment. The ground is that he is the owner of the property and further that he is not a party to the award and consequently the attachment is liable to be set aside, considering Rule 107(19) of the MCS Rules. 4. Having heard the learned counsel, in my opinion, the petitioner must have remedy to ventilate his grivance that the property belongs to him. In the instant case the respondent no.1 has an award in his favour on the basis of which the disputed property is attached. In such an event, the remedy for the party whose property is attached, is by filing objections in the proceedings for execution under MCS Act, that is to apply under Rule 107 (19) for setting aside the said attachment. The respondent is the authority bound to consider the Misc. Application which till date the court is informed has not been disposed of. 5. Considering the above the following order is passed. (3) In the event the Misc. Application in CC-1/369/2000 dated 15-3-2004 is not yet decided, the Co-operative Court, if it is the executing court, is directed to dispose of the same in accordance with the law. If the co-operative court is not the executing court, it will be open to the petitioner to file his objection before the executing court. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. ****