1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2355 OF 2010 M/s V.M. Traders, Kopargaon, through Shri Vaibhav Shankarrao Adhav, Age 34 years, Occ. Business, R/o 1442, Mitra Nagar, Dharangaon Road, Kopargaon, Tal. Kopargaon, District Ahmednagar. ... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Shri Bageshwari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Partur, Taluka Partur, District Jalna, through its Liquidator The District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jalna. 2. Majalgaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Sundarnagar, Tal. Majalgaon, District Beed. 3. Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank Ltd., 10, Town Centre, CIDCO, Aurangabad, through its Regional Manager. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri P.B. Shirsath, Advocate for the petitioner Shri S.D. Shelke, Advocate for respondent No.1. Shri B.B. Bhise, Advocate holding for Shri D.J. Choudhari, Advocate for respondent No.2. Shri R.S. Pawar, Advocate for respondent No.3 ..... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 6th October, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 2 1. Heard. By consent of the parties, heard finally. Counsel for respondents waive service. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. 2. In recovery proceedings initiated by petitioner, there was a decree. Consequently, Darkhast for recovery of the amount was initiated, being Special Darkhast No.6/2005. The lease amount, which was payable by respondent No.2 to the respondent No.1 was subject of challenge from the respondent No.3 Bank. The Bank claims that it had lein over the property of the respondent No.1 and also on the lease amount. 3. Considering the nature of controversies between the parties, it was not within the realms of the learned Judge to inhibit the decree to be executed in respect of collecting the rentals payable by respondent No.2, receivable either by respondent No.3 or on behalf of respondent No.1. The status of respondent No.2 is not in dispute. It had to pay huge amount to respondent No.3 as a amount of loan, however,, the amount of petitioner is a peanut and could not be dumped under the colour of respondent No.3’s title. The order under challenge calls for interference. It is set aside. The decree claimed under Darkhast be satisfied from the rentals to the extent of Rs.4,20,166/-as sought by the decree holder/ petitioner. Writ Petition is allowed. 3 Rule is made absolute in above terms. 4. Authenticated copy of this order, duly signed by the Sheristedar, be provided to learned counsel for the parties. K.U. CHANDIWAL JUDGE