1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.113 OF 2003 Ramu Bhanu Pawar since deceased through LRs. Petitioners versus Ravansiddha Bhanu Pawar and others Respondents C.M.Kothari for petitioners. Mrs.Manisha Shekhar for respondent no.1. P.B.Naiknavare for respondents 2a to 2f, 3, 5 and 6a to 6f. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 21st July 2009 PC :- 1. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners states that all concerned respondents have been duly served. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 and learned counsel for respondents 2a to 2f, 3, 5a to 5c, 6a to 6f. 2. The petitioners had made an application at Exhibit-68 in the execution proceedings. This Court by order dated 5th December 1997 passed in Civil Revision Application No.553 of 1997 had directed the Executing Court to decide the application at Exhibit-68. By the impugned order dated 18th February 1998 the said application has been rejected. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has invited my attention to the averments made in the application at Exhibit-68. The prayer in the said application is that the orders passed on applications at Exhibits-51, 2 57 and 62 be quashed and set aside and the said applications be reheard after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. It is pointed out in the said application that the heirs of the decree holders namely Thakubai and Gyany were brought on record by the orders passed on the aforesaid applications. It is pointed out that as far as deceased Thakubai is concerned, the said decree holder has brought himself on record as her heir on the basis of the alleged will. It is pointed out that the petitioners were not heard while deciding the applications at Exhibits-51, 57 and 62. One of the contentions raised in the application at Exhibit-68 was that the heirs could not have been brought on record after expiry of stipulated period of limitation. 4. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the application has been decided only on the ground that there was no period of limitation prescribed for bringing on record the legal representatives in execution proceedings. However, I find that the material and important contention raised in the application at Exhibit-68 that the first decree holder could not have been brought on record as the only heir of the deceased decree holder, has not at all been considered by the learned Trial Court. 5. In the circumstances, I find that all material contentions raised in the application at Exhibit-68 were not considered by the Trial Court on its own merits. 6. Hence, I pass following order :- (a) The impugned order dated 18th February 1998 is quashed and set aside; (b) The learned Trial Judge will pass a fresh order on Exhibit-68 in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of being heard to all the parties concerned; 3 (c) The application at Exhibit-68 shall be decided afresh within six weeks from the date on which the writ of this order is received by the concerned Court; (d) It is made clear that all contentions of the parties on merits are expressly kept open. (A.S.OKA, J.)