1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 91/2009 (Gopal Vithalrao Sahare & another VERSUS Sukhiram Urkhuda Kothare & another) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri G.N. Khanzode, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Paunikar,, counsel for the respondent no.1. Shri Mahesh Dandekar, counsel for the respondent no.2. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 21, 2009. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gadchiroli on 04.09.2008 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for making an enquiry in regard to the property owned by the judgment debtor and attaching the property of the judgment debtor only. It was the case of the petitioners in the application filed before the executing Court that the judgment debtor was the owner of house no.195 (New house no.202) and the petitioner was the owner of house no.193. 2 It appears that the executing Court had recorded a statement of the petitioners, who were present in the Court and the counsel for the petitioners admitted in the Court that the petitioners were not related with house no.195(New house no.202) and they had no objection for the attachment of the house no.195 belonging to the judgment debtor. In view of the statement made on behalf of the petitioner as well as their learned counsel, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 13.12.2007. Shri Paunikar, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1, the decree holder, has also stated before this Court that the decree holder is seeking attachment and sale of the property of the judgment debtor, i.e. House no.195 (New house no. 202) and the apprehension expressed by the counsel for the petitioners at this stage, is incorrect. In any case, the judgment debtor has also admitted that he 3 is the owner of house no.195 (New house no.202) and in such circumstances, it is made clear that only the house belonging to the judgment debtor may be sold for satisfying the money decree passed in favour of the decree holder, i.e. The respondent no.1 to this petition. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Order accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE APTE