1 WP-8939.11.sxw lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8939 OF 2011 Smt.Lahanubai Dattu Tungar (Since deceased through Lrs.) 1. Shri Sampat Dattu Tungar & ors. : Petitioners Versus Smt.Babanbai Dharmaji Jadhav : Respondent. Mr.S P Shinde for the Petitioners. None for the Respondent. CORAM : R M SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 08th November 2011 P.C. 1 The above Petition takes exception to the order dated 12/7/2011 passed by the learned District Judge-7, Nashik by which the Applications- Exhibits-21, 22 and 23 for setting aside of abatement, for condonation of delay and for brining the heirs of the original original Appellate on record were rejected. The Petitioners also challenge the order dated 22/7/2011 passed by the learned District Judge-7 Nashik by which the application filed on behalf of the Appellant for setting aside the order dated 12/7/2011 below Exhibits 21, 22 and 23 came to be rejected. 2 It is required to be noted that the parties are in execution. The Petitioners herein are the heirs of the original Judgment Debtor one Dattu Krishna Tungar. A decree has been passed as long as back on 21/2/1990 in 2 WP-8939.11.sxw Regular Civil Suit No.193 of 1983. The Respondent herein is the Decree Holder. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Appeal filed by the original Judgment Debtor against the said decree was also rejected. The decree was thereafter put in execution. By that time, the original Judgment Debtor had died and in his place his wife one Lahanubai Dattu Tungar i.e. the mother of the Petitioners was brought on record. The said substituted Judgment Debtor had filed an Application under Order 21 Rule 97 in the said execution proceedings which came to be rejected by the Executing Court by an order dated 24/03/2006. Against the said order the mother of the Petitioners i.e. the substituted Judgment Debtor filed Civil Appeal No.82 of 2006. It appears that the mother of the Petitioners died on 21/5/2006 and the Petitioners had filed the said three Applications-Exhibits-21, 22 and 23 on 15/11/2010 i.e. almost after a period of 4 ½ years. The Executing Court rejected the said Applications by holding that the Petitioners have not shown sufficient cause for delay. The Executing Court further observed that immediately after the death of their mother, the Petitioners had got their names mutated in the Revenue Record by Mutation Entry No.4411 in the year 2006 itself, but did not take any steps to prosecute the Appeal filed by their mother. The Executing Court, therefore, rejected the said Applications Exhibits-21,22 and 23. 3 After the said Applications were rejected by the order dated 12/7/2011, the Petitioners moved an Application for setting aside the said 3 WP-8939.11.sxw order. The Application was rejected by the same Court by an order dated 22/7/2011. It is significant to note that the Petitioners were unrepresented when the said Application was heard, and it has been so observed in the said order dated 22/7/2011. 4 The facts as narrated above disclose gross negligence and indolence of the Petitioners in prosecuting the said proceedings in which they were the Defendants. It is required to be borne in mind that the decree is of the year 1990. The Respondent herein, who is a lady, is still waiting to enjoy the fruits of the decree. Considering the facts as above, no indulgence can be shown to the Petitioners. In that view of the matter, no case for interference made out. The above Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. [R.M.SAVANT, J]