1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 5065 of 2011 Udaykumar R. Vyas Vs. Vikas Taranath Patil - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. S.V. Bhutada, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Dhore, Adv. for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 13 th October, 2011. Heard Shri Bhutada, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Dhore, the learned counsel for the respondent. The executing court rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner as premature as the executing court had already fixed the matter for hearing on the objections filed by the petitioner. After hearing the parties on the objections, the executing court could have decided whether the objections required tendering of evidence. However, without considering whether the objections were frivolous and not maintainable in the execution proceedings, the petitioner could not have been permitted to tender evidence. It is necessary to note that the objections are pending since 2006 and the matter has been delayed at the behest of the petitioner from time. The judgment reported in 2008(3) AIR Bombay R 734 and relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case as in that case while deciding an objection in the execution proceedings the executing 2 court had not expressed its opinion whether the objection pertained to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree and in such circumstances the court observed that the executing court was at liberty to permit the evidence to be led for the purpose of determining whether the objections pertained to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree only if the executing court was of the opinion that such evidence was necessary. In fact, this judgment supports the case of the other side and not the case of the petitioner. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan.