Judgment : 1. Rule, with the consent of the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The above petition takes exception to the order dated 19/4/2011 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Nagpur, by which order the application, Exh.38 for adjournment filed by the petitioner came to be rejected and the Trial Court by the said order forfeited right of the petitioner to make submission in respect of Exh.34 and 35 filed by the petitioner in the execution application filed by the decree-holder i.e. the respondents herein. 3. The petitioner herein had suffered a decree in Special Summary Suit No.1 of 2010. The petitioner has filed a First Appeal in this court. The said First Appeal was admitted and stay was granted in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that an amount of Rs.15,00,000/would be deposited within two weeks. The said statement was recorded in the order. This court had further recorded in its order that if the amount is not deposited as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the decree-holder would be free to execute the decree in accordance with the law. It appears that the petitioner against the said order dated 5/01/2011 carried the matter to the Apex Court by way of Special Leave Petition (SLP). In the Apex Court, the petitioner withdrew the SLP with liberty to file the Review Application in this court, which Review application has been disposed of by an order dated 20/6/2003 wherein the sale pursuant to the auction was allowed to be proceeded with but was directed not to be confirmed pending the First Appeal. The First Appeal, I am informed, is on the final hearing board of the concerned court. 4. In the execution application, the petitioner herein filed applications Exh.34 and 35, inter alia for objecting to the execution proceedings and for objecting to the auction sale. The said applications were on board on 11/4/2011 when the petitioner, who is the Judgment-Debtor, had sought time to advance arguments. The Trial Court was of the view that the said application was filed to prolong and delay the execution proceedings and hence granted adjournment till 19/4/2011 subject to payment of costs of Rs.1000/to each of the decree holders i.e. respondent nos.1 and 2 as also to the auction purchaser. The Trial Court was of the view that the said application was filed to prolong and delay the execution proceedings and hence granted adjournment till 19/4/2011 subject to payment of costs of Rs.1000/to each of the decree holders i.e. respondent nos.1 and 2 as also to the auction purchaser. The execution application thereafter was listed on 19/4/2011 when once again an application, Exh.38 was filed for adjournment of the hearing of the said application Exhs.34 and 35. The Trial Court considering the noncompliance of the earlier order dated 11/4/2011 refused to grant time and further has forfeited the right of the petitioner to advance argument in respect of applications Exh.34 and 35 filed by him. 5. During the course of the hearing of the above petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though the adjournment sought by the petitioner could have been refused by the Trial Court it could not have forfeited the petitioner’s right to advance arguments on Exh.34 and 35, and without giving such an opportunity it was improper on the part of the Trial Court to forfeit the said right. 6. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.1 and 2 i.e. the decree holders that the past conduct of the petitioner unequivocally demonstrates that the petitioner is merely interested in prolonging and protracting the matter and thereby delaying the execution proceedings. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Khare states that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the said order dated 11/4/2011 and further states that this court may further impose such conditions on the petitioner as this court would deem appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, the order forfeiting the right of the petitioner to advance the argument on Exh.34 and 35 is harsh. Since the petitioner has shown his inclination to deposit the amount as directed by the Executing Court by its order dated 11/4/2011, in my view, the interest of justice would be served if the petitioner is directed to pay further costs of Rs.1000/each to the respondents and the auction purchaser and the impugned order dated 19/4/2011 is set aside. Hence, the following directions. Hence, the following directions. (i) The impugned order dated 19/4/2011 is set aside on the condition that the petitioner deposits the costs as directed by the Trial Court by its order dated 11/4/2011 as also the additional costs of Rs.1000/each to the respondent nos.1 and 2 and the auction purchaser within two weeks in the Trial Court. (ii) Only on deposit of such costs and the evidence produced by the petitioner in that behalf, the applications Exhs. 34 and 35 would be restored and the petitioner would be heard thereon. (iii) If the costs are not deposited as stipulated by this order, the benefit of this order would not enure to the petitioner and the above petition resultantly would be deemed to have been dismissed. Rule is made accordingly absolute in the aforesaid terms with parties to bear their respective costs.