1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 5857 OF 2004. The State of Maharashtra ... Petitioner. Versus Ramchandra Ananda Kathar (Wani) deceased through his L.Rs. Smt.Chandrakalabai Ramchandra Kathar (Wani) and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.D.V.Tele, A.G.P. for the petitioner. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 16.06.2009. PER COURT 1. In this matter, the Executing Court has passed order in favour of the decree holder. The order shows that interest payable on all the components and solatium is taken into account. The view of the Apex Court in "Sundar Vs. Union 2 of India" 2002 (1) Mah.L.R. 332, is considered by the Executing Court. 2. The petitioner - State avers that no hearing was given by the Executing Court when the impugned order was passed. It is contended that the trial Court marked presence of the learned A.G.P. though he was not present in the Court and was not heard. The impugned order is, therefore, challenged on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. 3. Though served, the Respondents are absent. 4. Heard learned A.G.P. Mr.Tele, for the State/petitioner. He points out that in a group of similar petitions (W.P.No.4670/2004 to W.P.No. 4679/2004), this Court by common order dated 10.9.2004 allowed the petitions in view of such submissions. I have perused the common order by calling the relevant record. 5. The present case is covered by the 3 common order recorded by Coordinate Bench in the above mentioned group of matters. Consequently, the present petition also will have to be allowed in terms of the said common order. 6. In the result, the petition is allowed and the matter is remitted to the Executing Court with direction to pass appropriate orders after hearing both the sides. The Executing Court shall decide the application after hearing the learned A.G.P. for the State and on merits thereof. All the points are kept open. No final opinion is expressed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp585704