1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6076 OF 2008 Gitabai w/o Kishan Mehetre .. PETITIONER VERSUS Govind s/o Kishanrao Mehetre & another .. RESPONDENTS Mr. D.R. Shelke, Advocate holding for Mrs. S.D. Shelke, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate for respondent no. 1. Mr. Anil Kasliwal, Advocate holding for Mrs. N.A. Jain, Advocate for respondent no. 2. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 5 th November, 2009 PER COURT : 1 Petitioner herein – one of the decree holders is raising exception to the order passed by the executing court on 8-9-2008 whereby the executing court directed issuance of warrant of possession against the judgment debtor. Suit bearing Regular Civil Suit no. 46/83 was presented by the petitioner as well as respondent no. 1 herein claiming recovery of possession of the agricultural property from one Datta and Nanibai. After proper contest, the suit presented by the petitioner and respondent no. 1 came to 2 be decreed and they were held entitled to recover possession of the agricultural property. Decree passed by the trial court was subjected to challenge before the appellate court. However, the same was maintained. Respondent no. 1 herein alone presented application seeking execution of the decree which came to be registered as Regular Darkhast no. 4/2001. Petitioner herein, it appears, has refused to join party to the execution application. As such, she was impleaded as non-applicant in the execution petition. After considering the darkhast presented by respondent no. 1, the executing court was pleased to direct issuance of warrant against the judgment debtor. In the execution proceeding, objection was raised by the petitioner – one of the decree holders for execution of the decree on the ground that review petition is presented by the petitioner which is pending for consideration before the High Court. Another application also appears to have been tendered seeking dismissal of the execution application on the ground that the same is presented by only one of the decree holders. It has been pointed out that the review petition presented by one Datta – judgment debtor has already been dismissed by this court by order dt.8-10-2008. It has also been pointed out that infact no compromise is recorded between the parties i.e. petitioner and the judgment debtor in Regular Civil Appeal no. 95/1991. The first appellate court refused to record 3 compromise on the ground that the same is not presented by all the parties to the proceeding. Thus, the fact remains that there is no compromise entered into between the parties as alleged. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in view of the provisions of Rule 15(2) of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, interest of the petitioner needs to be protected. Petitioner has not approached with a suitable prayer either to the executing court or to this court. Petitioner may raise appropriate contention before the executing court as permissible in accordance with law. However, so far as the instant order is concerned, it needs no interference in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition therefore stands rejected summarily. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/wp6076.08.odt