1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6664 OF 2008 1. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded 2. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Hadgaon, Tq.Hadgaon, Dist : Nanded PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. Sau.Laxmibai W/o.Mandas Jogdand, Age-54 years, Occu-Household, R/o.Sidbara, Tq. : Hadgaon, Dist : Nanded. 2. Sarpanch, Grampanchayat, Chinchgavan, Tq.Hadgaon, Dist. Nanded, 3. Sub-Divisional Engineer, Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran Water Supply, Parisar Abhiyantriki, Public Works Department, Nanded. RESPONDENTS Mr.V.S.Panpatte, advocate for petitioners. Respondents absent even though duly served. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 16/07/2009 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. By the present writ petition under Article 227 r/w. Article 14 and 226 of The Constitution of India, the petitioners who are original respondent no.1 and 2 in W.C.F.A. No.4/1999 have challenged the order passed on 07/10/2008 by the Civil Judge, S.D. Nanded in execution proceeding by which the auction sale was issued on 13/11/2008. 2. Rule. 3. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission itself. 4. The factual matrix which gave rise to file the present writ petition can be summarized as follows : The respondent no.1 herein has filed Workmen’s Compensation First Appeal No.4/1999 in the Court of Civil Judge, S.D. Nanded (Designated Officer to decide the cases/appeals under the Workmen’s Compensation Act), against the present petitioners and respondent no.2 and 3. In the said first appeal, these petitioners and respondent no.2 and 3 in the present writ petition were arrayed as the respondents. That first appeal was filed by first respondent in the present writ petition for grant of compensation u/s. 4(a) of The Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1923. By the order and judgment dated 13/01/2003, the designated Civil Judge, S.D. has partly allowed the first appeal against the third 3 respondent with directions to pay the amount of compensation in the sum of Rs.1,10,685/- and the third respondent is directed to pay the amount with interest @ 12% p.a. It further appears that in pursuance of the said judgment and order, an award was passed. The respondent no.1 put in motion the award for execution in which proclamation for sale of the property mentioned in the sale proclamation was passed under Order 21 Rule 66 of CPC, in which the property according to present respondent is their property was put for auction. Hence they preferred an application under Order 21 Rule 58 of CPC raising the objection against the attachment of the property which allegedly belongs to them and not belongs to the original defendant no.3 who is arrayed as respondent no.2 in this petition. It is alleged that this objection petition filed under order 21 Rule 58 CPC is still pending in Spl.Dkt. (WCFA) No.67/2003. The only grievance of the present petitioners is that the First Appeal filed against them was dismissed and only judgment and order was passed against the second respondent in the present writ petition, who is the 3rd defendant/respondent in the first appeal. Thus according to him, as the judgment/award which was dismissed against them, no appeal is preferred by first respondent. In the premise, unless otherwise objection raised by them under Order 21 Rule 58 are decided, property in which they are having interest can not be first attached and then sale towards the satisfaction of the award. It is a fact that this application is still pending and yet to be finally decided. In the premise, unless this objection application filed by these petitioners under Order 21 Rule 58 is finally decided, the 4 property in which they are having the interest can not be seized and to be for the auction sale. Thus the rule made absolute as indicated above. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/JULY 2009/wp6664.08