1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE NO.1954 OF 2007 Thermax Capital Ltd. .. Plaintiff Versus Yamuna Glassworks Ltd. .. Defendants Mr.P.Mhatre i/b. Doijode & Associates for plaintiffs Ms.Nidha Singh i/b. Joy Legal Consultant for defendants CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 4th December 2008 P.C. . This is a notice under Order XXI Rule 22 of C.P.C. to execute and enforce a decree which 2 has been passed in the above summary suit. Admittedly, the decree was passed on 19th July 2005 after the defendants - judgement debtors failed to avail of the benefits of the order passed on 7th October 2004. In other words, conditional leave was granted to defendants to defend the suit on their depositing in the trial court a sum of Rs.37 lakhs on or before 7th January 2005. On failure to deposit, consequences under Order XXXVII of the C.P.C. were to follow. In other words, there is a decree in favour of the decree holder and against the judgement debtor. There is no appeal filed nor is there any order staying execution proceedings. 2. When this matter was placed before me yesterday, a request was made on behalf of judgement debtor to adjourn the matter. I had granted time till today to enable judgement debtor’s Advocate to contact judgement debtors 3 and make appropriate statements with regard to satisfaction of decree. Instead of taking instructions, all that the Advocate appearing for judgement debtor would urge is that he wants further time. This Court cannot go behind the decree which has gained finality. Since, all the ingredients of order 21 rule 22 are satisfied, leave is granted. Notice is made absolute. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)