1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.. 1283/2011 PAWANKUMAR AGRAWAL ..VS.. ASIAN DYE CHEMICALS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders | appearances, Court's orders of directions | | and Registrar's orders | | - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri B.N.Mohta, advocate for petitioner CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : MARCH 16, 2011. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola on 31.1.2011 dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for issuance of summonses to the Branch Manager of a Cooperative Bank, State Bank of India and the partners of Asian Dye Chemicals on the ground that this court had vide judgment dated 17.3.2009 in Writ Petition No. 5286/2008 directed the court to allow the parties to lead evidence as regards the deposits made by the judgment debtor in the court including the High Court in respect of the suit dues. On perusal of the impugned order dated 31.1.2011 it appears that the executing court did not commit any error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for issuance of summonses to the witnesses as the decree holder had filed a pursis before the court that it was not praying for recovery of any money claim, but was claiming only possession from the judgment debtor. In such circumstances, 2 the petitioner/ judgment debtor could not have sought permission to issue summonses to the witnesses for proving that a particular amount was paid to the decree holder. In view of the aforesaid position, the court rightly held that the examination of the witnesses was not necessary for deciding as to what amount was deposited in the court, as the respondent/ decree holder was not praying for recovery of money claim after it filed the pursis at exhibit 54. The order appears to be just and proper and calls for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP