(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 11016 OF 2010 Shankar s/o. Ramji Koli (Patil), since deceased by legal representative, Sitaram s/o. Shankar Koli, since deceased through legal representatives, Smt. Shantabai w/o. Sitaram Koli, Age : 65 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Bhasshiv, Taluka : Yawal, District : Jalgaon, .. Petitioners and Others. (Judgment debtors) versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Jalgaon, .. Respondents Collectorate, Jalgaon, (No.4 - Original and 4 others. decree holders) ....................... Mr. M.P. Kulkarni, Advocate, holding for Mr. S.S. Nirkhee, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. D.R. Korde, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 3. Respondent no.4 deleted. Mr. H.F. Pawar, Advocate, for respondent no.5. (2) ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 8TH FEBRUARY 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. The contention of Mr. M.P. Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, is the legal representatives of judgment debtor no.1 were not party to execution proceedings and are not, therefore, before Collector in precept which is sent subsequently. The application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, therefore, ought to have been allowed and those legal representatives should have been taken on record. 3. After hearing respective Counsel, I find that Order XXII Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure specifically state that provisions in Rules 3, 4 and 8 of Order XXII do not apply to proceedings in decree or orders. 4. Even otherwise, the trial court has permitted the petitioners to move Collector in precept proceedings. I am, (3) therefore, not inclined to interfere in this jurisdiction. 5. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/writ11016