ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 7532 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 7532 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 7532 OF 2008 M/s.Transport Corporation of India Ltd. ....Petitioner. Vs. M/s.Technofuor & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.Ajay K.J.Panicker for the Petitioner. Mr.P.S.Dani for the Respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : : : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 28th November, 2008. : 28th November, 2008. : 28th November, 2008. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- The Petitioner- Judgment Debtor has challenged the impugned order dated 30/08/2008 passed by the Executing Court whereby the Respondents-Decree Holders’ application is allowed and warrant of attachment of movables for recovery of Rs.99,185/-(Rupees ninety nine thousand one hundred eighty five only) is issued. 2. Admittedly, the suit was decreed in the year 1986 for the amount of Rs.47,146/-(Rupees forty seven thousand one hundred forty six only) and became final. In a execution Application No.77/1996 whereby ( 2 ) Respondent-Decree holder claimed recovery of the balance amount after deducting the amount of Rs.47,146/- (Rupees forty seven thousand one hundred forty six only). The objection filed by the Petitioner at Exhibit 12 was rejected, by order dated 24/04/1998. That order remained final in the same Darkhast proceedings. An application for issue of attachment of Warrant was filed on 26/10/2004. As there is no stay of this Special Darkhast, this application was allowed after deducting the amount paid by the Judgment-Debtor towards the decree as of the day of application which includes the amount as already paid and as recorded at Exhibit 12, as recorded above. After deduction the balance remains as on 25/10/2004, is Rs.99,185/- (Rupees ninety nine thousand one hundred eighty five only) with 16% interest on principal amount ranging for the period from 01/04/1996 till 25/10/2000. Therefore, execution of decree of the year 1986 again objected by the Judgment-Debtor. The learned Judge, after considering all material placed on record in view of the above facts and circumstances, rightly allowed the application and issued warrant of attachment by observing that the Court had already considered all questions raised by the Judgment-Debtor while ( 3 ) disposing of the Application below Exhibit 12 and therefore, the same question again cannot be agitated before this Court and as admittedly the decree is not satisfied completely. The issuance of warrant of attachment of movable properties for balance amount cannot be said to be perverse or bad in law. 3. The contention that the amount was not adjusted, has no force. The execution application itself, mentioned the adjustment of the said amount including the Exhibit 12, therefore, the impugned order needs no interference. 4. The Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. . Rule discharged. No order as to costs. (ANOOP (ANOOP (ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.) V. MOHTA,J.) V. MOHTA,J.)