1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1011 OF 2010 (Manaklal Haribprasad Sahu vs. Shri Maroti Deostan, Morshi & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. MARCH 10, 2010. Heard Shri Thote, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri C.N. Deshpande, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3. The respondents have filed execution proceedings vide R.D. No. 34 of 2003 and they are seeking execution of judgment and decree dated 06.04.1994 passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 29 of 1973. The petitioner – tenant raised objection in that execution and contended that as names of trustees who have filed execution are not recorded in Schedule I, the execution is not maintainable. The said objection was opposed by present respondents and by impugned order dated 30.10.2009 executing Court has rejected it. The Executing Court has found that Certified copy of Schedule – I was filed and in it names of respondents were notified as trustees. In this back ground, Shri Thote, learned counsel argues that the said certified copies were filed on 06.10.2009 while execution is pending since 2003. 2 According to him, therefore, the present trustees are not authorized to file it. It is further contended that the decree holders/ trustees who had filed the suit and obtained decree had expired already. It is apparent that there is no question of bringing legal heirs of deceased trustees on record. The new Trustees have been accepted by Competent Authority and the petitioner – tenant cannot object to the same. Even if the new trustees are accepted as trustees subsequently, they are entitled to execute the decree which has been obtained by Trust against the petitioner. No case is, therefore, made out warranting any interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.