1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10449 OF 2009 Anandibai Shripati Jarag & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Shri Keshavchand Banduchand Gujar @ Shah, since deceased through heirs : 1A to 1C (iv) & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.P.M.Arjunwadkar for Petitioners. Mr.S.R.Page for Respondents 1C(i) to 1C(iv). ...... CORAM:- A.S.OKA, J. DATED:- FEBRUARY 25, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners. 2. The Petitioners have preferred an Appeal before the District Court for challenging order dated 1st November 2007 passed by the Trial Court in execution proceedings. Initially Writ Petition was filed by the Petitioners for challenging the said order. By order dated 4th February 2008, the said Writ Petition was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to the Petitioners to prefer an appeal. On the basis of the liberty granted by this Court, the 2 Appeal was preferred by the Petitioners on 10th June 2008. Application for condonation of delay made in the said Appeal has been rejected by the impugned order. As stated earlier, the challenge in the Appeal was to an order dated 1st November 2007. Writ Petition filed by the Petitioners was disposed of on 4th February 2008 and the Appeal was preferred four months thereafter on 10th June 2008. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that the Appellate Court ought to have adopted a liberal approach and condoned the delay. He submitted that the delay was only of about 150 days. He submitted that Appeal was preferred on the basis of the liberty granted by this Court and therefore on condoning the delay the Appeal ought to have been entertained. 3. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. The order dated 1st November 2007 has been passed in Execution Application filed by the 1st and 2nd Respondents. The Petitioners are third parties who applied under Rule 97 Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the Execution Application. One Kishore Jarag also filed a similar application. The applications made by the Petitioners and the said Kishore were rejected 3 by the order dated 1st November 2007 which was challenged by the Petitioners by preferring appeal before the District Court. 4. It must be noted here that the said Kishore Jarag challenged the same order dated 1st November 2007 by preferring appeal No.30/2008 before the District Court. The said Appeal was preferred on 8th January 2008 and was decided on 12th September 2008. A copy of the Judgment in the Appeal shows that the Petitioners were represented by an Advocate in the said Appeal. Perusal of the Judgment of the Appellate Court shows that the Petitioners supported the said Kishore Jarag, the Appellant. 5. Considering this aspect, the Appellate Court has passed a discretionary order by which delay in preferring an appeal against order passed in Execution Application has not been condoned. No interference can be made in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA, J.)