1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3634 OF 2009 Yedu Rangnath Gaware ....Petitioner. Versus Sou. Jijabai Ashok Raut & others ....Respondents. Shri. A.N. Kakade, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri.K.S.Patil, A.G.P. for State. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 18th JUNE, 2009 PER COURT : 1. By way of present petition, petitioner challenges the order dated 24th April 2009 vide which the learned Principal Judge, Aurangabad has set aside the auction of property of the respondent No. 2. 2. It appears that in a maintenance proceedings the respondent No. 2 was required to pay certain maintenance to his wife Babita. However, he did not make payment of maintenance, therefore, execution proceeding was initiated by his wife Babita. In the said execution proceeding , the property of respondent No. 2 came to be attached. The said property was auctioned on 28th February 2009 for Rs. two and half lakhs. The petitioner had made payment on the next week. However, on the same day, the respondent No. 2 had filed objection and it appears 2 that the respondent No. 2 had deposited the amount of arrears of maintenance on 21st February 2009 itself and accordingly the Family Court had granted stay to the auction. The said order was also communicated to the Tahsildar who has held the auction. 3. The perusal of the order passed by the learned Family Court allowing the application of the respondent, would reveal that the learned Family Court has found that there were interpolations on the dates of the proceedings by the Tahsildar. It is further found that the Tahsildar had done so, so as to overcome the order of stay granted by the Family Court. In any event, the sale is not confirmed and auction purchaser does not have right over the property till the sale is confirmed under Order XXI Rule 82 of Code of Civil Procedure. The person whose property is auctioned has right to make payment before the sale is confirmed. 3. In that view of the matter, no infirmity could be found with the approach adopted so as to warrant interference in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. Hence, the writ petition is rejected. [ B.R. GAVAI, J. ] ssc/wp3634.09