JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, Petition is heard finally.

2. By this Petition, Petitioners challenge order dated 11 September 2019 passed by 6th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune in Regular Darkhast No.781 of 2012. By that order the Executing Court has recorded that nothing in the decree remains to be executed on account of execution of the sale deed by Decree-Holder and Judgment-Debtor in favour of third party. The Decree is held to be satisfied and the execution proceedings are closed.

3. Though the Petitioners were not parties to the suit, they came to be added as Judgment Debtors to the execution proceedings bearing Regular Darkhast No.781 of 2012. Petitioners filed their objections to the execution on 8 March 2005 and 28 April 2005. It is contended that without deciding their objections, the executing Court has proceeded to close the execution proceedings by recording satisfaction of decree.

4. Appearing for the Petitioners Mr. Gatagat, learned Counsel would draw my attention to the Objection Applications filed by Petitioner Nos.1 and 2. He would further draw my attention to the Development Agreement dated 31 January 2008 executed in favour of M/s. Rahul Constructions (second assignee of decree) in which the share of Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 was acknowledged. He would also draw my attention to the power of attorney dated 31 January 2008 executed in favour of the second assignee which is restricted to land admeasuring only 29 gunthas.

5. Mr. Gatagat, would therefore contend that since the share of Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in the suit property was admitted in the Development Agreement executed in favour of second assignee, the executing court ought to have decided the Objection Application filed by Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 rather than recording satisfaction of the decree. He would therefore, press prayer clause (b) of the Petition for restoration of execution proceedings for adjudication of Objections filed by the Petitioners.

6. Per contra Mr. Kshirasagar, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 would contend that Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 did not pursue their objections filed in the year 2005 for 14 long years till the impugned order was passed on 11 September 2019. He would rely on judgment of this Court in Shakuntala Shamsingh Mali vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. (2014) 2 Mh.L.J. 974 in support of his contention that no relief can be granted in the light of negligent conduct on the part of Petitioners. He would also seek dismissal of the Writ Petition on account of delay in filing the present Petition.

7. Mr. Kshirasagar, the learned Counsel would also draw my attention to the prayers made in the Objection Application and submit that the prayers were in the nature a fresh suit which otherwise would not have been decided in execution proceedings. He would submit that the Petitioners would otherwise not be remediless as they can always file their own suit seeking declaration of their share in the suit property, if any. He would further submit that half of the property is otherwise retained by the family and the Petitioners, who are sisters, can always file their own proceedings claiming their share in the property.

8. Rival contentions of the parties now fall for my consideration.

9. The proceedings arose out of Special Civil Suit No.1407 of 1992 filed for specific performance of Agreement to Sale. The Suit was compromised and decreed on 17 December 1994 under which Defendants in the suit were directed to execute sale deed of the property by accepting an amount of Rs.3,68,750/- from Plaintiffs. It appears that despite the decree, Defendants failed to execute sale deed in favour of Plaintiffs on account of which execution proceedings came to be filed by the first assignee of the Decree in the year 2004. Though the Petitioners were not parties to the suit, they were added as parties to the execution proceedings. They filed their objections to the execution of th