1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4411 OF 2009 M/s Shri Virbhadreshwar Trading Co. and another. ..Petitioners. Versus Central Bank of India ..Respondent ... Mr.Shiva Patil, Advocate for the petitioners. ... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ DATED : 6TH MAY, 2009. P.C. :- 1. The petitioners had availed of loan from the respondent Bank in 1985. The petitioners defaulted in making payment of the said loan. In 1991 the Bank preferred Suit for recovery of loan amount and interest, which was decreed on 22.2.1994. Execution proceedings came to be initiated by the Bank against the petitioners and attachment warrant of shop and residential premises came to be issued. Thereafter the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Solapur issued order regarding auction of the property. 2. Thereafter, on 18.6.2008 the petitioners preferred an application Exh.99 praying therein that the attachment of the shop be lifted and the petitioners be allowed to sell the shop and pay-off the loan from 2 the sale proceeds received from the said sale of the shop. The said application came to be rejected by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Solapur by order dated 17.10.2008. The learned Judge observed that the application was devoid of any merit and hence the said application came to be rejected. Being aggrieved by the said order, this Writ Petition has been preferred. 3. The learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that on 2.11.2007 the petitioners had preferred an application to allow him to sell the property by private negotiations, which application was allowed on 2.11.2007. He submitted that in such case his application for lifting attachment should have been allowed. However even after his application was allowed for almost one year no steps were taken by the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that he wants to sell the shop and out of the sale proceeds, he wants to pay-off the loan. However, it is seen that application Exh.99 is devoid of any relevant details, including as to the name proposed buyer. Had the petitioner really located a buyer, his name and offer price would have been mentioned in the application. The said application, as stated earlier, has been preferred after the matter has been pending in the Courts for over 18 years. It appears that application Exh.99 is just an attempt on the part of the petitioners to delay the proceedings relating to the auction of the premises. 4. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. Writ Petition is rejected. 3 [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]