1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.522 OF 2006 Smt.Sojabai Sayappa Kate & Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Smt. Shahida Mohammad Shaikh .. Respondent Mr.V.D.Raut for petitioners Mr.S.M.Gorwadkar i/b. Anil Shitole for respondent CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 24th February 2006. P.C. . Heard Mr.Raut for petitioner and Mr.Gorwadkar for respondent. 2 2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges an order below Exh.70 and an order dated 18th November 2005 in Darkhast No.2 of 2001. The Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pune which is the executing court and executing a decree passed in favour of respondent herein in Regular Civil Suit No.149 of 1994 has at the instance of petitioner judgement debtor and noting that there is no objection from the respondent decree holder, appointed court commissioner. The court has forwarded his report to the executing court. The petitioner desired to file his objections to commissioner’s report. Some time was stipulated to put in these objections but as the same were not place on record within the time frame stipulated by the executing court they were not taken on record. 3. This was the order and direction on Exh.70. 3 4. Thereafter, an application Exh.69 was made by the petitioner judgement debtor. It was prayed that he should be permitted to place his objections to the commissioner’s report. The specific prayer is that summons may be issued to the Court Commissioner for his examination and before such opportunity is afforded the Commissioner’s report should not be accepted by executing court. This application was rejected because the say/ reply to the Commissioner’s report containing objections thereto was not filed earlier. 5. In my view, the executing court ought to have enlarged time in the interest of justice and not prolonged the agony of the decree holder. All such procedural directions, which are in consonance with fairness and justice, ought to be interpreted in that manner and to render 4 substantial justice rather than giving an handle to the judgement debtor to prolong the proceedings. Admittedly, Regular Civil Suit is of 1994, the decree is of 31st March 2000 and the execution application is of the year 2001. 6. In the circumstances, following order:- a) Orders at Exh.69 and 70 passed by the Executing Court are set aside. b) Executing Court is directed to take objections of the judgement debtors to the Commissioner’s report on file and thereafter consider their request for oral examination of Commissioner and pass appropriate orders in that behalf. The above exercise shall be completed by executing court within six weeks from the date of appearance of parties before him and a copy of this order being produced 5 before him. c) Petition disposed of. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)