1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8642 OF 2009. _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 08.06.2011. 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 27.11.2009, passed by the Joint Civil Judge (J.D.), Jalgaon, below Exh.89 in Regular Darkhast No.454/2006, thereby allowing the amendment application of the decree holder has filed the present Writ Petition. 3. Mr.Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court below has erroneously allowed the amendment application. The objection filed by the present petitioner U/s 47 of the C.P.C. is pending consideration with the Executing Court but the same has not been 2 considered and the application Exh.89 has been erroneously allowed. According to the learned counsel, the said amendment could not have been allowed. The decree holder could not have sought any relief against the present petitioner in the execution proceedings. The present petitioner was not a party to the suit of which the decree is being executed. In fact, the petitioner is an auction purchaser which is conducted by the Commissioner pursuant to the decree passed in a suit instituted by the present Respondent Nos.7 and 9. His rights can not be effected. The Court below while passing the impugned order has not considered any of these arguments. 4. Mr.Patil, learned counsel for the decree holder submits that the merits are not required to be considered while considering the amendment application. The execution is in furtherance of the decree passed by the Court on 8.10.1991 in a suit filed by the decree holder. The said decree is not assailed by anyone and the petitioner is a purchaser after the decree was passed. 5. The fact that the decree in respect of plot 3 No.21 is passed in favour of the decree holder and against all the partners of the partnership firm is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the present petitioner has purchased the property in auction pursuant to the decree passed in favour of present Respondent Nos.7 and 9. Whether the execution filed by the present decree holder is in limitation; whether the decree holder can legally proceed against the present petitioner or the present petitioner's right can be protected are all the matters which can be gone into by the Executing Court while determining the objection raised by the petitioner U/s 47 of the C.P.C. or while deciding the execution on merits. It can not be disputed that the trial Judge had the jurisdiction to deal with the said amendment application. The trial Court has observed that the merits of the amendment application are not being considered and to avoid the technicality, the amendment is being allowed. 6. The amendment would not cause any prejudice to the present petitioner as all the points which the petitioner is entitled to raise on merits 4 are open. 7. In the result, as the order does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction, the Writ Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.08.06.2011. asp/office/wp8642.09