1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1212 OF 2008 The Maratha Sahakari Bank Ltd. .. Petitioner Vs. Mr.B.J.Chavan and Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Umesh J. Desai for the petitioner Mr.Naik Nasir Husain A.K.for respondent no.1 and 2 CORAM : A.A.SAYED, J. CORAM : A.A.SAYED, J. CORAM : A.A.SAYED, J. DATED : 28TH APRIL, 2008 DATED : 28TH APRIL, 2008 DATED : 28TH APRIL, 2008 P.C.: 1. In the impugned order dated 16.10.07, it is stated that no application appears to be pending under Rule 89, 90 or 91 of Order 21. Hence, sale dated 05.09.02 is confirmed. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the application of the applicants, who are the petitioners herein, being Exhibit 136 is pending before the Trial Court and the impugned order has been wrongly passed as at the relevant 2 time, the application of the petitioner was pending and very much on record of the trial court. 3. The learned counsel for respondent no.1 and 2 states that against the final decree, an appeal has been filed by his clients which is pending before the Appeal Court. 4. Be that as it may, since the impugned order is passed without considering the application which is pending, the order is required to be set aside and hereby set aside with a direction to the Trial Court to decide Ex.151 afresh after considering the application Ex.136 of the petitioners which is pending. 5. All other contentions of the parties are kept open. 6. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. ( A.A.SAYED, J.) ( A.A.SAYED, J.) ( A.A.SAYED, J.)