1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8747 OF 2009 1. Keshav Tantu Sapkale, Age 43 yrs., Occu. Agril., 2. Pandharinath Tantu Sapkale, Age 38 yrs., Occu. Agril., 3. Eknath Tantu Sapkale, Age 32 yrs., Occu. Agril., All R/o. Anjale, Tq. Yawal, Dist. Jalgaon. ....Petitioners. Versus Alka Chudamal Mahajan, Age 42 yrs., Occu. Electrical Contractor, R/o. Vitthal Mandir Ward, Bhusawal, Tq. Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon. ....Respondent. Shri. Girish V. Wani, Advocate for petitioners. Shri. Sk. Mohd. Naseer, Advocate for respondent. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 16th August, 2010. ORAL JUDGMNET : 1. This writ petition challenges the order dated 10.2.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon below Exh. 46 in Special Darkhast No. 65/2004. By this order the application filed by the respondent/decree holder under Order 21, Rule 66 of Civil Procedure Code for sale of property by auction has been allowed. 2 2. Notice in this matter was issued on 5.1.2010 and an ad-interim relief was granted in terms of prayer clause "C". As a result, the order dated 10.2.2009 passed below Exh. 46 has been stayed. 3. The respondent/decree holder is served. Shri. Sk. Mohd. Naseer appears for respondent. The learned counsels for the parties submit that the matter can be finally disposed of at the stage of admission. Hence, Rule, made returnable forthwith. Matter is heard finally by consent of parties. 4. The only ground of challenge raised to the order is that the petitioners, who are the judgment debtors, have filed an objection Exh. 36 on 16.1.2009 for sale of the property. However, without considering the said objection, the order has been passed by the Trial Court on the application Exh. 46, filed under Order 21, Rule 66 by the decree holder /respondent herein, granting the same on 10.2.2009. It is urged that the petitioners/judgment debtors had not been given an opportunity to file their reply to the said application and the Trial Court has allowed the said application, on the ground that the judgment debtors are absent. 5. Perusal of the order impugned in this petition shows that it is not supported by any reasons. The application Exh. 46, on which the order has been passed, does not seem to have been served upon the 3 petitioners. It was filed on 10.2.2009 and on the same date, it was allowed. The objection filed by the petitioners at Exh. 36 has not at all been taken into consideration. Hence, for all these reasons, the order impugned in this petition cannot be sustained. 6. In the result, the instant writ petition is allowed. The order dated 10.2.2009 passed below Exh. 46 in Special Darkhast No. 65/2004 by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon is hereby quashed and set aside. The Trial Court is directed to decide the application Exh. 46 afresh along with the objection Exh. 36 after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard in the matter. The order be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of writ from this Court. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/wp8747.09