IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 629 OF 2009 SHRI. KRISHNA MUKUND NAIK (DECEASED) THROUGH LR'S ... Petitioner Versus SHRI. VISHNU MUKUND NAIK (DECEASED) THROUGH LR'S ... Respondent Mr. P. Wagle, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. V. R. Tamba, Advocate with Mr. D. D. Zaveri, Advocate for the respondents. Coram:- R. M. SAVANT, J. Date:- 3rd November, 2009 ORAL ORDER The above Petition exemplifies an attempt by the Judgment Debtors to stall the execution of the Decree which has been passed against them. The Petitioners herein are the original Judgment Debtors in respect of a Decree in the suit filed by the Respondents herein for partition of the house property. The parties are closely related. 2. Since it was a suit for partition, the Trial Court passed a preliminary Decree on 29.12.1999 and sent it to the Commissioner for appropriate action as regards partitioning the property. The Petitioners on receiving the report of the Commissioner, filed their objections to it. The Trial Court considered the objections of the Petitioners and after rejecting the same, passed a final Decree in terms of the report of the Commissioner. The respondents herein thereafter moved for execution of the Decree by filing Execution Proceedings bearing no. 18/08/A. In the said Execution Proceedings, a notice came to be issued to the Petitioners herein, inter alia, asking them to show cause as to why the Decree should not be sent to the Collector for partition. The said notice was served upon the Petitioners on 15.01.2009. Inspite of the said service of notice, till 26.02.2009, when the matter came up before the Executing Court, the Petitioners did not bother to file any reply. 3. Now it is sought to be contended on behalf of the Petitioners that the Executing Court has sent the Decree to the Collector for partition without giving an opportunity to the Petitioners and hence the principles of natural justice are violated. The said submission now made is misconceived for twofold reasons. One is that the Petitioners have already been heard on the report of the Commissioner after the preliminary Decree was passed by the Trial Court. It is also pertinent to note that though the notices were received by the Petitioners on 15.01.2009, they did not bother to file any reply till 26.02.2009. In any event, the principles of natural justice as held by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions, cannot be placed in a straight jacket formula so as to vitiate every action on the said ground. The reliance placed by the Petitioners on the Judgment of this Court reported in 1990(2) GLT 433(Shri Shamrao Vishnu Signapurkar vs. Mapusa Municipal Council) is misconceived in the facts of the present case. 4. In the instant case, in my view, no useful purpose would have been served in hearing the Petitioners as the Petitioners have already been heard at the relevant time on the Commissioner's report. The stance of the Petitioners is, in my view, a last ditch attempt to stall the execution of the Decree. No case for interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court is made out. 5. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. R. M. SAVANT, J. arp/*