1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9573 OF 2009 Sushila Bhupal Danole and another Petitioners versus Vidyasagar Gramin Bigar Sheti Sah.Path Sanstha Respondents and others Pramod Kathane for petitioners. M.A.Patil for respondent no.1. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 05th March 2010 PC :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the first respondent. The first respondent is the decree holder. In execution application filed by the first respondent immovable property of the judgment debtor was put to sale. Application purporting to be an application under section 47 read with Rule 59 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was filed by the petitioners objecting to the attachment and sale. By the impugned order the said application has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the suit for 2 partition of the property subject matter of sale has been already filed by the petitioners and the said suit is pending. The submission is that objection raised by the petitioners to the attachment has not been dealt with on merits and, therefore, the Executing Court has committed an error. Learned counsel for the first respondent pointed out that the sale was conducted on 18th November 2009 and the same was made final on 4th December 2009. He submitted that the petitioners had relinquished their right, title and interest in the suit property by a registered document. 3. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. Main ground on which the application made by the petitioner has been rejected was relinquishment of their right, title and interest by executing a registered document. A copy of the said document i.e. the registered deed of relinquishment dated 9th January 1998 executed by the petitioners and others has been annexed to the reply. In view of the said document, the executing court was justified in holding that the petitioners had relinquished their right, title and interest in respect of the suit property. No case for interference is made out. The writ petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA, J.)