1 lpa293-10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGBAD. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of | coram, appearance, court’s orders | Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders | LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.293/2010. Sahebrao Namdeo Patil & Ors Vs Abdul Riyaz [Died] L.Rs.Abdul Salim & Ors. ... Shri R.F.Totala,Adv.for appellants. Shri R.R.Mantri,Adv.for R-1A & 1B. .... CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE & R.M.BORDE,JJ. DATE : 03/03/2011. 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2] In this Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant has impugned the order dated 12/10/10 passed in Writ Petition No.3428/09. By this order, Petition has been allowed and the orders dated 11/2/09 passed on the application at Exh.223 and the order dated 1/4/2009 passed on the applications at Exhs.226 and 228 in Regular Darkhast No.27/94 2 lpa293-10 have been set aside. By these applications (Exhs.226 and 228) the appellants sought production of copy of partition deed dated 4/8/82 and permission to give secondary evidence to get the said document (dated 4/8/82) established. 3] Learned counsel for the appellant challenged the order passed by learned Single Judge mainly on the ground that the costs of Rs.1500/- imposed by the Executing Court had been accepted by the respondents-decree holders and therefore, they have no right to challenge the orders impugned in the Appeal and then he submitted that as provided for under Order XXI Rule 98 of C.P.C., the executing Court is obliged to treat the objection as independent suit and deal with the same in accordance with the provisions of the C.P.C. In our opinion, both the submissions are devoid of any merit. The learned Single Judge has considered all the submissions in proper perspective. He has observed that the appellant is the purchaser of the part of the property which is the subject matter of the execution after filing of the suit. It has also come on record that though there 3 lpa293-10 was a reference made to this document (dated 4/8/82), nobody made any attempt to produce this document in the course of hearing of the suit. If this document is allowed to be taken on record, it virtually amounts to setting aside the decree itself, which in our opinion, cannot be permitted in execution proceeding and that too at the instance of a party who has purchased the property during pendency of the suit. In our opinion, substantial justice has been done by the impugned order. 4] That apart, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Shalini Shyam Shetty and another V/s Rajendra Shankar Patil reported in 2010(7)SCALE 428, no interference in such cases is called for. Hence the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. 5] In view of dismissal of the Appeal, Civil Application No. 15279/10 stands disposed of. (R.M.BORDE,J.) (D.B.BHOSALE,J.) umg/lpa293-10