1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.997 OF 2008 Gopal Mahadeo Karve .. Petitioner Versus Mrs.Anjanadevo Sunderlal Singhvi.. Respondent Mr.C.R.Benke for petitioner Mr.Anil Agarwal for respondent. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 21st February 2008 P.C. . This petition challenges an order below Exh.29 dated 16th January 2008 in Regular Darkhast No.64 of 2006. 2 2. The application was filed by the judgement debtor in execution proceedings and the request was to restrain the decree holder from creating third party interest or parting with possession of the suit shop till hearing and final disposal of the execution proceedings and more particularly Misc.Application No.30 of 2007. 3. It is undisputed before me that the petitioner decree holder had filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Kalyan. That suit being Regular Civil Suit No.250 of 2005 was decreed ex parte. Upon the decree being put in execution, the petitioner decree holder took possession of the immovable property/suit property. The decree was thus executed. However, the judgement debtor filed an application in the execution proceedings and sought an injunction against the decree holder - petitioner before me, seeking restraint from alienation or encumbering of the suit property. The request was made as the judgement 3 debtor - respondent had applied for setting aside the ex parte decree and that application (Misc.Application No.30 of 2007) is pending. 4. After this matter was argued for some time, it was brought to my notice by Judgement Debtor that in the pending application for setting aside ex parte decree, the judgement debtor - original defendant applied for identical relief viz., injunction and restraint and the said application is pending. According to him, an order of status quo has been passed in the said application. In the light of the pending application for setting aside ex parte decree so also grant of restraint order and injunction against the decree holder, Mr.Agarwal states that the judgement debtor does not press the application made in Regular Darkhast No.64/06 (Exh.29). 5. In the light of this statement of 4 Mr.Agarwal nothing survives in the petition as the application so also the order dated 16th January 2008 passed by the executing court does not survive in the light of the withdrawal as noted above. Resultantly, insofar as the executing court is concerned, there is no restraint against the decree holder. The decree holder shall abide by the order and direction in Misc.Application No.30 of 2007 subject to his rights and contentions to urge that restraint and injunction be vacated so also the application itself be dismissed. All contentions of both sides in that behalf are expressly kept open. Petition disposed of. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)