(1) WP. 3239.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3239 OF 2010 Kailash S/o Govindlal Gaud .. Petitioner VERSUS Somnathappa S/o Nagnathappa Halge and others .. Respondents Mr. G.R. Syed, Advocate for the Petitioner ... CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATED : 13TH APRIL, 2010 PER COURT:- 1] While passing the order dated 23.1.2002 in Regular Civil Appeal no. 181 of 1988 the first appellate Court, dismissed the appeal and further directed that the decree passed by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiff is confirmed subject to payment of deficit Court fees by the LRs. of the deceased respondents in the appeal. It appears that while depositing the Court fees the deposit has been made in Execution Application bearing Regular Darkhast No. 55 of 2004. While objection was raised, in respect of deficit Court fees, it was pointed out to the appellate Court by presenting Misc. Civil Application no. 65 of 2009, that the order passed by the appellate Court has been complied with, however, (2) WP. 3239.2010 the Court fees is deposited in the Execution proceedings. Considering the explanation tendered by the plaintiff, the first appellate Court directed that the note in respect of the payment of deficit Court fees be taken in the R & P of Regular Civil Appeal no. 181 of 1988 and the said order passed by the District Judge-2 at Ambajogai dated 21.12.2009 in Misc. Civil Application no. 65 of 2009 is subjected to challenge at the instance of judgment debtors. 2] It is the contention of the judgment debtors, that the order has been passed by the appellate Court without extending an opportunity of hearing to the judgment debtors and consequently it was not permissible for the original plaintiff/D.H. to deposit the Court fees in the Execution proceedings. 3] I have perused the order passed by the first appellate Court. The objection raised by the judgment debtors need not be entertained for the reason that in fact the order passed by the appellate Court while disposing of Regular Civil Appeal no. 181 of 1988, has been complied with by the plaintiff. It is not controverted that there is insufficient deposit of Court fees. The fact remains however, that the amount of deficit Court fees is paid. The objection raised is merely of technical nature. So far as question of extending opportunity of hearing (3) WP. 3239.2010 to the judgment debtors is concerned, the order passed by the first appellate Court in Misc. Civil Application no. 65 of 2009 is merely of a administrative nature directing the Office to take note of deficit Court fees in the record of the appeal. It is also not the case of the judgment debtors that any time frame was stipulated by the first appellate Court in respect of deposit of the deficit Court fees and same having been violated by the original plaintiff-decree holder. 4] The objections raised in the Petition are frivolous in character and in exercise of the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, no interference is called for. The Writ Petition stands rejected. Sd/- (R.M. BORDE, J.) arp