1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 3323 OF 2007 (Jai Maa Santoshi Textiles .v. Sanjay Gandhi Kapoos Utpadak Sahakari Soot Girni Maryadit and others) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri G.G. Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri K.S. Malokar, Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri N.R. Saboo, Advocate for the respondent No.3. CORAM : R.V. MORE, J. 05TH JUNE, 2008. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. By the impugned order, the executing Court allowed the application below Exh.5 filed by the respondent No.3 in Special Execution Case No.17/2006. The Special Civil Suit No.1/2005 filed by the respondent No.3 for recovery of an amount of Rs.9,21,124/- came to be decreed with interest against respondent No.1. As on today, the decretal amount comes to the tune of more than rupees 12 lakhs. The respondent No.3, thereafter filed darkhast proceedings being Special Execution Case No. 17/2006 and put the decree in execution. In the aforesaid darkhast, the respondent No.3 2 filed an application below Exh.5 contending that the mill belonging to the respondent No.1 is being run by the petitioner under some agreement. It was further contended that the petitioner might have taken the premises of the respondent No.1/Society on rent and it might be under obligation to pay to the respondent No.1 an amount of rent or compensation. In the circumstances, orders are asked for attachment of amount of rent or compensation that may be payable by the petitioner to the respondent No.1 and other movable property of the respondent No.1 which is in possession of the petitioner. The learned trial Court allowed the application filed by the respondent No.3 and, thus, the petitioner is challenging the said order by filing the present petition. Shri G.G. Mishra, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the respondent No.1 owes to the petitioner approximately rupees 26 lakhs and, therefore, it is not obliged to pay rent or compensation to the respondent No.1. He further submits that its raw material and finished products are lying in the premises belonging to the respondent No.1/ Soot Girni. He also submitted that the petitioner is running Soot Girni belonging to the respondent No.1 under the agreement and the 3 respondent No.3 cannot ask for attachment for raw material and finished goods and stock in process which are exclusively belonging to the respondent No.1. He further submits that he has no objection for attachment of machinery and other movable properties belonging to the respondent No.1. Shri N.R. Saboo, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3 submits that in view of the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the property exclusively owned by the petitioner can be excluded from attachment and the impugned order may be restricted to the movable property belonging to the respondent No.1, which is in possession of the petitioner. In above facts and circumstances, I dispose of the petition by passing following order. “The impugned order is modified as follows:- The application below Exh.5 filed by the respondent No.3 in Special Execution Case No.17/2006 is partly allowed. The respondent No.3/Decree Holder to take steps for attachment of the property belonging to the respondent No.1 excluding the movable property exclusively owned by the petitioner i.e. raw material, finished goods and stock in process.” 4 Writ Petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms. JUDGE *rrg.