1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7470 OF 2007 Harvinder Palsingh Shergil. ...Petitioner. vs. 1.Maruti Kamal Patil & ors. ...Respondents. --- Mr.Gauri Godse, for Petitioner. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, J. DATED: 18th JANUARY,2008. P.C.:- 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Executing Court declining to condone the delay in lodging the objections under 2 Rule 90 of Order 21 of Civil Procedure Code. Admitted position is that there is a decree passed in favour of respondent no.1 and against respondent no.2. It is also an admitted position that in execution of that decree, the property in question was attached in the year 1996. An objection is raised by the petitioner. But perusal of that objection shows that though it is an admitted position that the respondent no.2 judgment debtor was the owner of the property, there is no averments as to at what point of time the title to the property is acquired by the petitioner, no document of title was produced with the objection. What is further significant is that there was a suit filed by the respondent no.1 for declaration that transfer of the property by respondent no.2 in favour of the petitioner is fraudulent. That suit admittedly has been decreed, there is no appeal filed immediately. After considerable delay, an appeal has been filed before the District Court. An application for condonation of delay has been filed, that application has been rejected. Taking overall view of the situation therefore, the Executing Court has declined 3 to condone delay. I find that the attempt of the petitioner to raise objection is merely a ploy to delay the execution. There is no substance in the objections itself. In my opinion, it will not be in the interest of justice for this Court to interfere in its extra ordinary jurisdiction. The petition is rejected. ---