1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7944 /2010 Kiran Suryakant Khardekar .. PETITIONER VERSUS Rameshwar Rajaram Kabre & Ors .. RESPONDENTS .... Shri Hemant Surve,Advocate for petitioner. .... CORAM : R.M.BORDE,J. DATE : 1/09/2010 ORAL ORDER : 1] The objection application presented to the Court, resisting execution of the decree by petitioner-third party, has been turned down by Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalna in view of the order passed on 2/8/2010 and the said order is subject matter of challenge in the instant petition. 2 2] The objector claims that he was in possession over the disputed property on the basis of some Bharna Pawati and the agreement executed in his favour by the original owner. It is his contention that he was not aware of the civil proceedings initiated in respect of the disputed property and when the decree was sought to be executed, he came to know about these proceedings and has rushed to the executing Court with an application tendered under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3] The trial Court after considering the contentions raised by the 3 rd party applicant, has proceeded to reject the application on the ground that, firstly, the agreement stated to have been executed, is not registered one and secondly, the report received by the Court from the bailiff does not disclose that the objector is in possession of the property. In terms of Rule 97 of Order XXI of C.P.C., resistance can be put to the decree in case where the holder of a decree for the possession of immovable property or the purchaser of any such property sold in execution of a decree is resisted or obstructed by any person obtaining possession of the property, he may make an application to the Court complaining of such resistance or obstruction. 4] As stated above, the Court has observed that there is no report 3 received at any time that the objector is in possession of the suit property. The contention raised by the objector that he is in possession of the property, is found to be doubtful for the reasons stated in the order. Previous 3 objections raised, in all probabilities, at the instance of judgment-debtor, have been turned down. First such objection was raised by one Manjur Ahmed claiming resistance to the decree on the ground that he is in possession of the property, has been turned down by the executing Court. The objector filed Regular Civil Appeal No.94/2004 which came to be dismissed on 28/4/2009 by judgment delivered by District Judge – 2, Jalna. After objection in the first objection, the second objector Ashok Mandale filed objection at Exh.124, which also came to be turned down on 17/4/2010. The third objector viz. Badrinarayan Oza raised objection at Exh.139, the same also came to be turned down on 27/7/2010. The instant objection is the 4 th one raising similar contentions that the objector is in possession of the property. In the circumstances stated in the order, the executing Court was justified in holding that the objection raised is not bonafide and as such proceeded to reject the same. It is to be noted that the decree in question was passed on 7/8/1990, whereas the execution application presented in the year 1998 is still pending. The decree holder is entitled to receive fruits of the decree. 4 5] Considering the facts and circumstances enumerated above, I do not find that this is a fit case for exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition is devoid of any merits, hence stands rejected. 6] The counsel for the petitioner seeks time to vacate the premises. As observed above, there is no evidence in respect of the present possession of the petitioner over the property, as such, request made stands rejected. [R.M.BORDE,J] umg/wp7944-10