1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1789 OF 2010. Nusrat Kamal Abdul Gafoor Ansari and others. -: VERSUS :- Smt. Firoz Akthar Dr. Ejaj Ahmad and another. 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, J. DATED : JULY 19, 2010. Heard Shri Athar, learned counsel for petitioners, Shri Rohit Joshi, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and Shri A.S. Chandurkar, learned counsel for respondent no.2. The judgment debtor has challenged the orders dated 07.01.2010 passed by the 8th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur below Exh.62 in R.D.No241/2002 with further orders dated 20.01.2010. Shri Athar, learned counsel contends that the objections raised by petitioner / judgment debtor vide Exh.31 are still kept pending and a direction to execute sale deed has been issued. 2 Shri Chandurkar, learned counsel for respondent no.2 states that, respondent no.2 is a mortgagee from petitioner who has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 30/2008 before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ramtek claiming declaration that redemption of mortgage is not possible and claiming title. He states that the impugned order militates with prayers made in the plaint. Shri Joshi, learned counsel for respondent no.1 [decree holder] contends that there is no question of any inconsistency between the prayers in Suit filed by respondent no.2 and directions issued by the Executing Court. According to him, as per the settled procedure the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ramtek would pass a decree for redemption. He points out that as per the unregistered deed of mortgage between the petitioner and respondent no.2, only an amount of Rs.40,000/- is payable. According to him, the situation is taken care of by the impugned order passed by the 8th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur. Facts show that respondent no.1 decree holder has deposited amount of Rs. 90,000/- and is praying for execution of sale deed in his favour. The Executing Court has directed that out of it amount of Rs. 40,000/- be made over to present petitioner for getting the mortgage 3 foreclosed. Further orders passed on 20.01.2010 show that the said Court is aware that the objection of petitioner at Exh.31 is pending and therefore it has expressly observed in its later order that further orders in respect of the execution of sale deed would be passed after decision on Exh.31. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary for this Court to consider the interest of respondent no.2 in the present execution. No prejudice is caused to the petitioner in any way. The execution is pending since 2002, the Executing Court shall thus attempt to decide the same are the earliest. Writ Petition is thus rejected with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.