1 WP 6694.2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6694 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr. S.D. Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. T.B.Adik, Advocate for the respondent. ........................... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE :05/10/2011 PER COURT : 1. Heard Mr. S.D. Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. T.B.Adik, the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The Suit filed by the present petitioners came to be decreed. Pursuant thereto, the execution proceedings were filed. In the said execution proceedings, the present respondent filed an objection. The said objection is pending. The petitioners had taken objection to the maintainability of the said objection petition. During the pendency of the same, the present respondent filed an application for amendment in the said objection petition. The said application is allowed. The said order is assailed 2 WP 6694.2011 in the present Writ Petition. 3. Mr. S.D. Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the objection of the present respondent is not maintainable. Earlier the objection was rejected. Thereafter again, the objection has been filed. Ex- facie the same is not maintainable. It has been filed only to harass the petitioners. The objection which is not maintainable can not be allowed to be amended. 4. Mr. Adik, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the objection about the maintainability of the objection petition and the rights of the present respondent pursuant to the said objection are not yet decided. Only the application is filed seeking the amendment which is not allowed. No order on merit has been passed on the objection petition. The objection petition filed by the respondent is only 64 Sq.Ft. of the land as is agreed. The maintainability of the said objection petition is yet to be decided. As such, there is no propriety in entertaining the said Writ Petition against the order allowing the said objection petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that because of the said objection, the execution petition in respect of the other part of the property, of which there is no objection or of which the objections have been decided, is not proceeded further. 5. The objection raised by the present respondent is 3 WP 6694.2011 only concerning a part of the property, of which the execution petition is pending. There is no impediment for the executing court to proceed further with the remaining part of the property if there are no other objections pending. 6. It appears that the matter has been decided up to the Apex Court in the year 2007 and still the petitioners are deprived of the fruits of the decree. In light of the above, the trial Court shall expedite the proceedings of the execution and decide it as expeditiously as possible. 7. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] KNP/WP 6694.2011 4 WP 6694.2011