1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7848 OF 2010 Dr.Pandit s/o Dattatray Shelke, age: 46 years, Occ: Business / Agri., R/o Shirdi, Tq. Rahata, District Ahmednagar. Petitioner Versus 1 Dhanjay s/o Dattatraya Shelke, age: 47 years, Occ: Business / Agri R/o Shirdi, Tq. Rahata, District Ahmednagar. 2 Ravindra s/o Pandharinath Shelke, age: 49 years, Occ: Agri., R/o as above. 3 Pandharinath s/o Parashram Shelke (died through L.Rs.): 3-A Smt. Bhimabai w/o Pandharinath Shelke, age: 74 years, Occ:Household, R/o as above. 3-B Arvind s/o Pandharinath Shelke, age: 48 years, Occ: Agri., R/o as above. 3-C Prakash s/o Pandharinath Shelke, age: 45 years, Occ: Agri., R/o as above. 3-D Smt. Pramila w/o Haribhau Gayke, age: 45 years, Occ: Household / 2 Agri, R/o as above. 3-E Sou.Anuradha w/o Deeliprao Nimse, age: 37 years, Occ: Household / Agri, R/o as above. 3-F Sou.Shashikala w/o Vijayrao Deshmane, age: 34 years, Occ: Household / Agri., R/o as above. Respondents Mr.A.S.Gandhi, advocate for the petitioner. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 30 th August, 2010. P.C.: 1 An application came to be tendered by the petitioner – third party applicant requesting for permitting him to implead as party to the proceedings bearing Regular Darkhast No.6 of 2008. 2 Said application tendered by the third applicant requesting for his impleadment in the proceedings has been turned down by the executing court observing that the decree holder and judgment debtor have presented a pursis on record stating therein that the decree under execution has already been executed. 3 It transpires on perusal of the order that in terms of the pursis presented on record by the judgment debtor and decree holder, possession of the disputed property is stated to have been 3 received by the decree holder. The decree holder has also admitted that he has received possession and no further steps are required to be taken in the execution proceedings. 4 The petitioner, who is third party applicant, contends that the property has fallen to his share and possession thereof is with him. The statement made by the decree holder or the judgment debtor, while securing disposal of execution proceedings tendered by decree holder, would obviously not bind the third party applicant. If at all the contentions raised by third applicant, in his application, are true, he may have to present appropriate proceedings for securing his interest and the presentation of application for his impleadment in the Darkhast would not be an appropriate remedy available to the third party applicant. The executing court has adopted a right approach in the matter while turning down the application tendered by petitioner – third party applicant. No interference is called for. Petition is devoid of substance. 5 Writ Petition, therefore, stands rejected. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/wp784810