1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6165 OF 1995 The Ganesh Bank of Kurundwad Ltd. Branch Ichalkaranji ...Petitioner vs. Haridas Bandu Aamane & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.P.R.Arjunwadkar for the petitioner Mr.N.J.Patil for respondent no.2 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : AUGUST 20, 2009 JUDGMENT: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent no.2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has taken an exception to the orders dated 29 th July 1994 and 22 nd August 1985 passed by the trial court in execution proceedings. 2 The petitioner-bank had filed a money suit in the civil court. There was a compromise between the petitioner and the first respondent-borrower. The suit proceeded against the second respondent who was allegedly a surety. During the pendency of the suit, an order of attachment before Judgment was passed in favour of the petitioner. A Decree was passed against the second respondent in the suit. In execution application filed by the petitioner, a prayer was made for attachment of 2 the immoveable property of the second respondent which was attached during the pendency of the suit. The said application was rejected by order dated 29 th July 1994. The petitioner applied for review of the said order which came to be rejected by order dated 22 nd August 1995. 3 The learned trial Judge directed that the bank will have to proceed against the assets of the first respondent and only thereafter, the bank can proceed against the property of the second respondent. 4 After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as of today, I find that there is no case for interference made out. The impugned orders have been passed about 14 years back. If execution application is still pending, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the petitioner can make a fresh application for attachment of the property of the second respondent if the decree remains unsatisfied till today. If such application is made, the trial court/executing court is bound to consider the same in accordance with law without being influenced by the impugned order. 5 Subject to what is observed above, writ petition is rejected. JUDGE