{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5058 OF 2010 Tulshiram s/o Shivram Bansode and others Petitioners Versus Hanumant s/o Shamrao Bansode Respondent Mr.M.A.Kandharkar, advocate for petitioners CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 6 th September, 2010 PER COURT: 1 An objection raised to the execution of the decree by judgment debtors no.1, 7 and 8, has been turned down by the executing court in view of the order passed on 06.04.2010 and said order, passed during pendency of execution proceedings, is subjected to challenge in this writ petition. 2 There are two objections raised to the execution of decree, firstly, it is contended that suit property bearing S.No.22/1 is purchased in the names of sons of Judgment Debtor No.3 and in the absence of sons of J.D. No.3, the proceedings of execution cannot proceed. The second objection raised is in respect of purchase of certain properties by J.D. No.3, during continuance of proceedings of suit, appeal and second appeal. It is contended that property has been purchased by J.D. No.3 in the name of his sons and daughter-in-law during continuance of proceedings of suit, appeal and second appeal and as such said persons are necessary parties to the execution proceedings. {2} 3 The trial Court found that mutation entry has been recorded in the names of two sons of J.D. No.3 during pendency of suit. J.D. No.3 is party to the proceedings and decree passed in the suit will bind J.D. No.3 and his sons. So far as property purchased during continuance of suit, appeal and second appeal, it is observed by the trial Court, that those properties are not subject matter of suit and no decree has been passed in that regard and as the property has been purchased subsequent to filing of the suit, no cognizance can be taken with regard to the property purchased during pendency of suit, appeal and second appeal. 4 I have perused the order passed by the executing court and heard arguments advanced by learned Counsel for petitioners. I do not find any error in the order passed by the executing court. In exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, no interference is required to be caused in the interlocutory order passed during continuance of execution proceedings. Petition is devoid of substance. 5 Writ Petition stands rejected. R.M.BORDE JUDGE adb/wp505810