1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3190 OF 2007 Manakchand Saupchand Lunavat (since deceased) by legal representaives .. Petitioner versus Shantilal P. Choradia & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.R.D.Soni i/by Ram & Co for the petitioner. Mr.R.D.Deshmukh for the respondent No.1. Mr.Bipin Kasle for respondent Nos.2 to 4. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 8th September 2009. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The petitioners are judgment debtors. On an application made by a third party- obstructionists invoking provision of Rule 97 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, adjudication was sought to be made by the Executing Court in the pending execution application. The obstructionists third parties adduced evidence by producing affidavit-in-lieu of examination-in-chief of their witness. An application was made by the petitioners who are the judgment debtors seeking permission to cross-examine obstructionist. By the impugned order the said application has been rejected. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners being judgment debtors are parties to the execution proceedings 2 and therefore they are entitled to cross-examine the obstructionist. He submitted that the third party obstructionists have raised various issues of title and therefore cross-examination of the obstructionist is necessary. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions. Initially, an application was made by the petitioners that they may be permitted to cross-examine the obstructionist before the cross-examination was made by the decree holder. The said application was rejected. Thereafter, cross-examination of the obstructionist by the decree holder has been completed. 4. On application made by the third party obstructionists, adjudication is being made as regards the rights of the third party obstructionists. The obstructionist proceedings under Rule 97 of Order XXI of the said Code are in the nature of a lis between obstructionist and the decree holder. In the circumstances, the trial Court was justified in rejecting the prayer made by the petitioners for seeking permission to cross-examine the obstructionist. There is no scope to interfere with the impugned order in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition is rejected. In view of the rejection of the petition, Civil Application No.904 of 2009 does not survive and the same is disposed of. (A.S.OKA,J)