1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1280 OF 2010 Sudhir s/o Vishwanathappa Tambve .. PETITIONER VERSUS Sau. Vachala w/o Shivajirao Maindad & others .. RESPONDENTS Mr. A.K. Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 20 th APRIL, 2010. PER COURT : 1 Objection raised by the petitioner for execution of decree passed by the trial court entitling the plaintiffs / respondents herein for specific performance of agreement has been turned down by the executing court while dealing with application at exh. 44 tendered by the petitioner in Special Darkhast no. 61/2006. 2 Petitioner claims that he is the allottee of the property from the housing society and as such, decree passed in favour of the plaintiff in Special Civil Suit no.100/99 cannot be executed. Objection is tendered by 2 the petitioner herein in view of provisions of Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Trial court has turned down the objection on the ground that the petitioner herein had raised challenge to the decree passed by the trial court in Special Civil Suit no. 100/99 and the application tendered by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay in presenting the appeal has been turned down by the High Court. While rejecting the application seeking condonation of delay in presenting the appeal, this court has considered all the relevant aspects and confirmed the decree passed by the trial court. In view of adjudication in First Appeal no. 307/2008 to which the objection petitioner was party. Application was presented under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3 I have perused the order passed by the executing court and heard arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. The fact remains that the petitioner had presented appeal being First Appeal no. 3021/2008 alongwith application bearing no. 8738/2007 requesting to condone delay in presenting the appeal. All the objections raised in the application presented in pending darkhast were raised before this court. This court, however, did not entertain the appeal and dismissed the same. In view of dismissal of appeal presented by the petitioner, objection presented 3 by him in Special Darkhast no. 61/2006 has been rightly turned down. No interference is called for in the instant petition in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition is devoid of substance hence stands dismissed. 4 In view of dismissal of petition, pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/wp1280.10.odt