1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1214 OF 2010 Sushila Vithoba Bhosale Petitioner versus Yashwant Bajirao Sawant and others Respondents Mr.R.V.Bansode for petitioner. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 22nd February 2010 PC : 1. The petitioner is the judgement debtor no.1. By the impugned judgment and order dated 20th October 2008, the application made by the judgment debtor no.11 was allowed and he was permitted to transpose himself as a decree holder. The petitioner applied for review of the order. The application for review has also been rejected. These are the orders impugned in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the judgment debtor no.11 is claiming on the basis of sale deed executed by the decree-holder no.2 Kondabai. He submitted that the decree holder no.2 Kondabai was claiming on the basis of a Will executed by the original decree holder Sundarabai. He submitted that the Will is not yet established and, therefore, Kondabai had no authority to transfer the 2 property to judgment debtor no.11. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned orders are illegal. 3. On plain reading of order dated 20th October 2008, what has been permitted is transposing of judgment debtor no.11 as a decree holder. Notwithstanding the said order, the petitioner can always raise an objection to the locus of the judgment debtor no.11 to execute the decree on the ground that Kondabai had no right, title and interest in the property. Whether the decree can be executed at the instance of judgment debtor no.11 or not is a question which has not been decided by the impugned order and only the transposition has been permitted. The petitioner can always raise objection to the executability of the decree at the instance of judgment debtor no.11. Hence, writ petition is not entertained and the same is disposed of accordingly. (A.S.OKA, J.)