1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1168/2011 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 506/2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3339/2011. Smt. Gita Bhagwantrao Shekokar and 3 others -VERSUS- Shri Dwarkadas Kashiram Agrawal and 4 others. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI AND P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED : DECEMBER 12, 2011. Heard Shri G.R. Sadar, learned Counsel for applicants/appellants. As notices were not issued to respondents in main Letters Patent Appeal, we recall our order dated 01.12.2011 and restore L.P.A. No.506/2011 back to file. …..... 2 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 506/2011. Heard Shri G.R. Sadar, learned Counsel for appellants. The appellants are tenant and have challenged rejection of their objection by the Executing Court in execution proceedings filed by the respondent landlord vide Small Cause Darkhast No.1/2008. The Civil Suit out of which the said proceeding has arisen was filed vide Small Cause Suit No.46/1991. Learned Single Judge has on 18.10.2011 noted that the decree for eviction of present appellants has attained finality and the objection in execution that respondent – decree holder was not the owner of the property and infact the property belong to Government, was rightly rejected by the Executing Court. It also found that there was no plea that decree was obtained by fraud. In this situation, it is apparent that a 3 right of purely private nature was sought to be ventilated in petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The only respondents in that petition under Article 227 were private persons namely landlords. Therefore, in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty and another .vrs. Rajendra Shankar Patil reported at (2010) 8 SCC 329, it is apparent that no interference is possible in the present matter. Letters Patent Appeal is, therefore, rejected. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd