1 Wp5252,5253/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5252 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5253 OF 2011 1 Vasant s/o Manaji Kambale, Age 54 years, Occupation Nil, Resident of Saras Colony, Saras Nagar, Ahmednagar. Petitioners 2 Shashikant s/o Anandrao Hiwale, Age 59 years, Occupation Nil, Resident of Prakashpur Housing Society, Prakashpur Colony (Tarakpur), Ahmednagar. V E R S U S 1 Bhaskar Pandurang Hiwale, Education Society Through its Secretary Mr. Philip Nathanial Barnabus, Age 83 years, Occupation Nil, Resident of Ahmednagar, College Campus, Station road, Ahmednagar. Respondents 2 Center for Studies in Rural Development Institute Through its Director Dr. Suresh Ramdas Pathare, Age 40 years, Occupation Nil, Resident of C.S.R.D., Campus, Station Road, Ahmednagar. Shri V.S. Bedre, Advocate for the petitioners Shri A.K. Gunale, Advocate for the respondents CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 17th August, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, both these writ petitions are taken up for final hearing and heard finally. Both these writ petitions can be disposed of by this common Judgment. 2 Wp5252,5253/11 3. These writ petitions are challenging the judgment and order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar, in Special Darkhast Nos. 40 of 2006 and 41 of 2006. This order was passed under the provisions of Section 51 read with Rule 40 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. It is common ground that the petitioners are judgment-debtors. In 2005, the respondents-society have obtained money decrees against them. The decretal amounts are more than Rs.4 lac in each case. The decree- holder-society then filed application under Sec. 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure for detention of the petitioners in civil prison, because, according to them, the petitioners willfully avoided to pay the decretal amount though they had means to do so, as contemplated under Sec. 51 read with Rule 40 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure. A detail evidence was recorded by the Courts below to record a finding that after filing of the suits, mentioned above, the petitioners / judgment-debtors had dishonestly transferred their property, which was the act of bad faith in relation to their own property. The learned Judge of the execution Court also came to the conclusion that since the date of decree, the petitioners / judgment-debtors had means to pay the amount of decrees or at least substantial part thereof, and yet refused to pay the same. 5. Having regard to the reasons mentioned by the learned Judge of the execution Court, I do not think that there is any scope for interfering in the findings recorded. Apart from this, despite of recording the finding above mentioned, the learned Judge of the execution Court used his discretion provided under the provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 40 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure and granted initially one month time for the petitioners to deposit the amount sue-moto. Despite of such benevolent 3 Wp5252,5253/11 order passed in favour of the petitioner, they filed this petition, and yet again avoided to pay the decretal amount. There is no reason to interfere in the impugned order. In view of this, the writ petitions stand dismissed. Rule is discharged. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) SRM/