1 FARAD CONSTITUTION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3534/2009 (Ganpati Y. Kumbhare ..vs.. 4th Jt. C.J.S.D., Nagpur and another) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM:- B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE:- NOVEMBER 10, 2009 Heard. The contention is respondent/Judgment Debtor is delaying the execution by moving frivolous applications. Challenge in this writ petition is to the orders as recorded in order sheet dated 06/4/2009 by which executing court has directed the objector to complete the examination-in-chief and place the matter for cross-examination by Decree Holder. Advocate Shri V.R.Choudhari for petitioner- D.Hr. contends that objection at Exh.11 is already disposed of and does not survive. He relied upon the judgment dated 15/1/2008 of this court in Writ Petition No.3470/2007, particularly paragraph 8 to substantiate his contention. Advocate Shri B.G.Kulkarni, on the other 2 hand, relies upon orders dated 07/10/2006 passed in Writ Petition No.4441/2002 to state that Exh.11 needs consideration and affidavit in support of said objection has been rightly filed. Perusal of judgment of this Court dated 07/10/2006 (supra) shows that the court found that disputed questions could very well be looked into by the executing court only. The said order, therefore, does not show that any objection, like Exh.11, was disposed of. Perusal of subsequent judgment dated 15/1/2008 (supra) shows that the court has noticed that challenge before it was to order for framing of issues and while considering said challenge, has found that executing court had considered the objection at ExH.11. It also found that the said objection was considered by the Co-operative Court. However, entire judgment nowhere shows that objection at Exh.11 was, therefore, found to be unsustainable and was set aside. There is no finding that objection at Exh.11 was already decided by the executing court. It is, therefore, apparent that worth of Exh.11 was required to be considered by the executing court and for that purpose, he had kept the matter on 01/4/2009 and thereafter on 06/4/2009. The objector has filed his affidavit of evidence vide Exh.21 and 3 hence, the executing court has found that the objector has to complete his examination-in-chief and thereafter D.Hr. has to cross-examine him. Thus, it has not considered and rejected any contention of present petitioner. It is open to petitioner to demonstrate that Exh.11 is frivolous and misconceived or objection therein already stands rejected because of some orders passed by the Co-operative Court in the matter. In the circumstances, it is difficult for this court to quash challenge to order sheet dated 06/4/2009 at this stage. However, considering the age of petitioner and the fact that execution proceedings are pending since 2002, the executing court is directed to give priority to this matter and to decide it as early as possible. With these observations, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. JUDGE Diwale.