( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 97 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8172 OF 2009 Ilahi Bashir Chand and ors. .. Appellants Versus Smt. Ratnabee w/o. Mohmedsaheb and ors. .. Respondents Shri R.D. Biradar, Advocate for the appellants. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 12.08.2009 P.C. :- 1. This appeal from order is directed against the rejection of objection petition filed in Regular Darkhast No. 109 of 2008 by the judgment debtors. Copy of objection petition to the execution is produced at Exh. "D". It is stated therein that the decree holders i.e. present respondents had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 296 of 2005 seeking possession of lands from the judgment debtors. The ( 2 ) judgment debtors were in possession of the property since their ancestors. The suit was decreed ex-parte and thereafter Regular Darkhast No. 109 of 2008 was filed. It is stated that the decree was obtained by manipulating heirship certificate and also by playing fraud on the judgment debtors and the Court. However, it is clear that the decree was challenged by filing Regular Civil Suit No. 535 of 2004 by the present appellants. It is stated that the advocate for the respondents/decree holders was sick and advocate for the present appellant mentioned the sickness to the Court and inspite of that the suit was dismissed for default. The judgment debtors who are present appellants filed application for restoration of the suit. However, no notice on the decree holders could be served as the Bailiff reported that the respondents/decree holders were not found on their respective addresses and therefore the Court dismissed the application for restoration also for default. By the application the appellants/judgments debtors wanted the executing Court to withhold the execution until the suit challenging the decree on the ground of fraud is heard on merit and decided. ( 3 ) 2. Heard Adv. Shri R.D. Biradar for the appellants. It is abundantly clear from above said narrations of events in the application for objection that the judgment debtors were never serious in their submissions. They did not attend the suit. They allowed the Regular Civil Suit No. 535 of 2004 to be dismissed for default. The restoration application was not properly pursued. Executing Court has its own limitation. It cannot go behind the decree. It is not mentioned that after dismissal of application for restoration of Regular Civil Suit No. 535 of 2004, any other steps are taken by the present appellants/judgment debtors. 3. Not being satisfied with the reasons, this Appeal From Order is dismissed at the stage of admission. 4. In view of disposal of the Appeal From Order, Civil Application No. 8172 of 2009 does not survive and it is also disposed of as such. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/AUG09/ao97.09