1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR LPA NO. 293 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2664 OF 2009 (Kamlabai Sadanand Mohekar vs. Nanasa Gulabsa Jain through LRs & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & F.M. REIS, JJ. SEPTEMBER 04, 2009. Shri Kilor, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Mohta, learned counsel for respondents No. 1(A) to 1(E). On the basis of 1959 judgment and decree, execution was filed in 1975. It appears that name of present appellant was deleted from execution because she was not being served. The house property was then auctioned. The appellant contends that she got knowledge in the year 2002 when she learnt about Will executed by her father in relation to auctioned property in her favour. She, therefore, filed a suit for declaration of her right on the basis of that Will and also moved objection in pending execution for setting aside the auction sale. The objection was overruled and that order was maintained in appeal as also by learned Single Judge in writ petition. Before the learned Single Judge, the appellant pointed out that the execution was barred by limitation. 2 Shri Kilor, learned counsel contends that it is apparent that the execution as filed is after 16 years and hence it was barred by limitation. He states that the learned Single Judge erroneously found that it was a mixed question of facts and law which could not have been raised in writ petition for the first time. Shri Mohta, learned counsel states that the objection as raised is only a roving effort to assist the judgment debtors who happen to be brothers of present appellant. He points out that there was an appeal after 1959 and after adjudication, in that appeal, the execution came to be filed and nobody objected to that execution as time barred. We have perused the papers and we find that the application of execution is filed after an appeal itself was filed and came to be dismissed. The appellant is not aware of the fact of filing of said appeal or the date on which the said appeal came to be dismissed. Shri Kilor, learned counsel is seeking adjournment to place appropriate facts on record. It is apparent that the adjournment on this account is not warranted as we are hearing the matter in LPA. We do not find any error in the order of learned Single. Letters Patent Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.