1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9684 OF 2009 Baburao Bhagwan Powar (since deceased through his L.Rs) 1-A Arvind Baburao Powar & Ors. ...Petitioners vs. Bapuso Mallu Patil (since deceased through his L.Rs) 1) Smt.Parvatibai Bapuso Patil & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.R.B.Parab for the petitioners None for the respondents CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JANUARY 21, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners filed an objection to the decree under execution. By the impugned order, the said objection has been rejected. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908, the Executing Court is duty bound to hold an enquiry on the objections raised by the petitioners on the ground that the decree has been obtained by fraud. He submitted that the case of the petitioners has not been considered on merits. 3 I have given careful consideration to the submissions. The petitioner is one of the Judgment Debtors. The decree sought to be executed is a consent decree and the Predecessors of the petitioners are parties to the consent decree. The objection was raised by the petitioners by filing an application at Exh.95. 2 There is bald assertion in the application that the decree has been obtained by fraud and mistake. No material particulars of the fraud have been pleaded by the petitioners. The learned Executing Court has noted that the decree was of 1971 and the execution proceedings are of 1984 in which such objection was raised in the year 2007. 4 No case for interference is made out. Petition is rejected. JUDGE