:1: :1: :1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8279 OF 2007 Vijaya Shivanand Aras ...Petitioner Versus Dadoba Jagannath Religious Trust and Ors. ....Respondents ====== Mr.M.N.Morje, Adv. for the petitioners. Mr.Farhan Dubhash with Mr.B.B.Madekar i/by. M/s. Madekar and Co. Adv. for the respondents. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 10TH MARCH, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. Heard Mr.Morje appearing for the petitioners and Mr.Dubhash for the respondents. 2. By this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging an Order passed by the Lower Appellate Court in Misc.Appeal No. 547 of 2007. 3. The title of this judgment itself would show that :2: :2: :2: there is an Execution Application No. 953 of 2006 which has been filed to execute the Decree in the Suit. However, upon the Decree being put in execution and a possession Warrant issued, a complaint is made that the petitioner was dispossessed without hearing her and considering her objections to the executability and enforceability to the Decree, despite the Undertaking given by her to the Supreme court. She raised these objections by filing a Misc.Application which is numbered as Misc.Application No. 336 of 2006. 4. The grievance of Mr.Morje is that without any orders being passed on Misc.Application No. 336 of 2006 the Executing Court decided Misc.Notice No. 22 of 2007 by an order dated 18.9.2007 and that Order is confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court on 3.11.2007. 5. The Decree Holders by Misc.Notice No. 22 of 2007 seek directions against the present petitioner with regard to the Movables which are lying according to the Decree Holders in the suit premises. 6. That Misc.Notice was decided and an Order was :3: :3: :3: passed directing the present petitioners to remove the Articles. 7. Aggrieved by that order, the Appeal was preferred which was dismissed. 8. I see no reason to interfere with these orders impugned in this Writ petition. They proceed on the basis that the Decree has become final and that is how the enforcement and execution thereof is permissible in law. In such circumstances, the Executing Court has issued directions. The petitioner has been dispossessed but Misc.Notice No. 336 of 2006 seeking restoration of possession alongwith the Articles and Movables is pending and not disposed off. The Trial Court as also the lower Appellate Court has referred to this aspect. Yet, the impugned orders have been passed with regard to the Movables and Articles. 9. While dismissing these petitions and upholding the orders with regard to the Movables and Articles, I direct the Trial Court to decide Misc.Application No. 336 of 2006 and all other pending Applications of the :4: :4: :4: petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, and within a period of 6 weeks from the date a copy of the order is produced before the Executing/Trial Court. All contentions in that behalf are kept pending. The orders on Misc.Notice No.22 of 2007 dated 18.9.2007 and affirmed by the Appellate Judgment of 3.11.2007 shall not be given effect to for a period of 6 weeks from today. 10. All contentions of both sides in Misc.Application No. 336 of 2006 are kept pending and the said Application be decided in accordance with law. The dismissal of this petition will not preclude the petitioner from raising appropriate contentions in Misc.Application No.336 of 2006. Needless to state, that once Misc.Application No.336 of 2006 is disposed off, the Executing Court can give effect to all orders with regard to the Movables and they shall be dealt with in accordance with law. 11. Writ Petition is dismissed subject to above. No costs. In the light of dismissal of this Writ petition, Civil Application does not survive and are :5: :5: :5: disposed off. SD/- ********