spb/- 1 wp2128-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2128 OF 2011 Ms. Prema Dinanath Bhoir & Ors. ... Petitioners. (Org.J.D.) V/s Shir Rajendra ChandramaSingh ... Respondent. (Org.D.H.) --- Mr. Y.S.Jahagirdar, Sr. Counsel i/by R.D. Suryawanshi for the Petitioners. Mr. Narendra Walawalkar, Sr. Counsel i/by M/s. Mahesh Jani & Co. for the Respondent. ----- CORAM : D. G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 18th JULY, 2011. P.C. : 1 Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr. Walawalkar, Senior Counsel instructed by M/s. Mahesh Jani & Co. waives service on behalf of the respondent. By consent of the parties, heard forthwith. 2 The petitioners are the judgment debtors, who have suffered a decree for specific performance dated 5th January, 1995 passed in a Suit No. 1208 of 1994. On 4th March, 2010 the respondent filed an execution petition, bearing Special Darkhast No. 28 of 2010, for execution of the decree. The petitioners objected to the execution of the decree and by spb/- 2 wp2128-11.sxw an application at Exh. 17, they contended that as the execution of the decree was barred by limitation the execution petition was not maintainable. By an order dated 24th February, 2011, the executing court rejected the application. That order is impugned in the present petition. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to paragraph no.12 of the impugned order which reads thus : “12] The point of limitation raised by Judgment Debtors is already decided by my colleague i.e. Principal Civil Judge, Senior Division while presenting and entertaining the execution proceeding at the stage of giving registration number. Therefore, again it cannot be looked into.” 4 It appears an office objection was raised by the court officer examining execution petitions as to the maintainability of the execution petition as he was of the prima facie opinion that the execution petition was barred by limitation. The matter was, therefore, placed before the Principal Civil Judge, Senior Division for consideration of the office objection. It appears that overruling the office objection, the Principal Civil Judge, Sr.Dvn., directed the registration of the execution petition. spb/- 3 wp2128-11.sxw Obviously, this was done ex-parte and without notice to the petitioners. The order of the Principal Civil Judge directing registration of execution petition, can by no stretch of imagination be held to be conclusive determination of the issue of limitation. In any event, the petitioners were not heard when the office objection was overruled. The petitioners are not bound by the order of registration of the execution petition. The executing court, therefore, erred in coming to the conclusion that the objection to the limitation was previously decided by the Principal Civil Judge, Sr. Division and the executing court ought to have decided the objection raised to the maintainability of the execution petition and decided it on its own merit. 5 For these reasons, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded back to the Executing Court for deciding the objection to the maintainability of the execution petition afresh as regards the point of limitation. Other points raised in Exh. 17 in the Executing Court are not pressed in the present proceedings as the petitioners wish that the same would be raised by them in the suit which is separately filed by them. 6 Petition is disposed of in the above terms. [D.G. KARNIK, J.]