1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5330 OF 2010 Jagannath s/o Tamdu Rajput, Age 71 years, Occ. Agri., R/o Kalamsare, Tq. Shirpur, District Dhule. ... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The Bank of Baroda, Branch at Dahiwad, Tq. Shirpur, District Dhule. through its Branch Manager. 2. Smt. Takhatbai w/o Jagannath Rajput Age 65 years, Occ. Household, R/o Kalamsare, Tq. Shirpur, District Dhule. 3. Premsing s/o Puna Rajput, Age 40 years, Occ. Agri., R/o Dahiwad, Tq. Shirpur, District Dhule. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri Prakashsing B. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner Shri J.R. Shah, Advocate for respondent No.1. Shri H.D. Patil, Advocate for respondent No.2 Shri D.S. Bagul, Advocate for respondent No.3 - absent ..... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 6th October, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. By consent of the parties, heard finally. Counsel for respondents waive service. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. 2 2. The recovery of Bank dues was sought by the execution proceedings being Application No.22/1996. For non prosecution, it was dismissed on 18.1.2008. The restoration application was moved on 24.4.2008, after three months. The inhibition created by virtue of Order 21 Rule 106(3) of the Civil Procedure Code cannot be obliterated. Such exercise necessarily should be within the specified period of a month (30 days). Having not carried such exercise diligently, restoration by the learned Judge calls for interference. The observations that it is Bank money, therefore, restoration also was uncalled for. The position of law is clarified in the matter of Damodaran Pillai & ors. Vs. South Indian Bank Ltd. (2005 (5) ALL MR (SC) 961, wherein the Apex Court has dealt with the starting period of limitation of excluding the scope of Section 5 of Limitation Act. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. No costs. K.U. CHANDIWAL JUDGE