1 cra1037.sxw ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.1037 OF 2010 Sushila Kantilal Kocharmutha ...Applicant vs. Shantilal Paduban Chordiya & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Shriram Kulkarni for the applicant None for the respondents CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE :DECEMBER 20,2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. The applicant has already raised an objection to the execution of the decree by filing an application purporting to be an application under Rule 97 of the Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908. During the pendency of the said application, another application was made by the revision applicant at Exh.447 raising a contention that the decree has been obtained by fraud. The said application has been rejected by the executing Court. 2 When the application made by the applicant raising objection to the execution of the decree is already pending, there was no occasion for the applicant to file a separate application in execution and therefore, the said application at Exh.447 could not have been entertained by the executing Court. 3 All contentions raised by the applicant in the substantive application are at large which are bound to 2 cra1037.sxw be considered by the trial Court in accordance with law. 4 Subject to what is observed above, no case for interference is made out. Revision application is rejected. JUDGE