Lsp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4273 of 1994 M/s. Kulkarni Foundaries Ltd. ...Petitioners v/s. Bank of Maharashtra ...Respondents Mr. Sachin Dhakephalkar for the petitioner. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. DATED DATED DATED : MARCH 05, 2009 : MARCH 05, 2009 : MARCH 05, 2009 P.C. . Heard Counsel for the Petitioner. None appears for the Respondents. 2. This Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the Judgment and order passed by the IInd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pune dated 6-10-1994 below Exhibit 77 in Special Darkhast No. 79/93. By the said application Exhibit 77, the Petitioners/Defendants 2 & 3/Judgment Debtor nos. 2 & 3 prayed that only after the remedy of selling the mortgaged and hypothecated fixed assets was exhausted, the consent decree though passed against Judgment Debtors 2 & 3 be proceeded further. The Court below has discarded that contention on the finding that the consent terms clearly indicate that the Judgment Debtors 2 & 3 were jointly and severally liable to pay the amount. Besides the High Court in Writ Petition No. 2 2965/1994 has already passed order on 19th August, 1994 making provision for selling of the mortgaged and hypothecated fixed assets. Besides, the High Court expected the Executing Court to proceed with the execution unhindered by the pendency of the said Writ Petition. 3. To complete the narration of facts it will be relevant to note that during the pendency of this petition while admitting the writ petition on October 24, 1994, this Court had made it clear that the Respondent Bank may proceed further with the execution and realise the dues from other property except mentioned in the undertaking. In all probability, the Respondent Bank has resorted to that remedy and must have taken further steps to take the execution proceedings to its logical end. It is also noticed that although this Court had observed that the present Writ Petition should be heard alongwith Writ Petition No. 2965/1994, however, the said Writ Petition has already been dismissed on 29-11-1994. Presumably, the Respondent Bank must have recovered the decretal amount. It is for that reason, no appearance is made by the above Respondent Bank. 4. Be that as it may, reverting to the merits of the present Petition, the opinion recorded by the Executing 3 Court seems to be just and proper. The argument for deferring the execution against the Judgment Debtors 2 & 3 has been considered by the Court below in the context of the relevant clauses in the consent terms. The view so taken in a possible view and needs no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 5. Accordingly, this Petition should fail, however, at the sametime it is made clear that if the Respondent Bank has already recovered the entire decretal amount, the question of proceeding against the Judgment Debtor nos. 2 & 3 further would not arise. That is a matter which can be considered by the Executing Court and appropriate view taken on that contention at the relevant time. 6. Petition disposed of on the above terms. [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.]