1 WP No.6617/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6617 OF 2010 KISHAN LIMBAJIRAO KADAM DECEASED TH LRS KONDIRAM KISANRAO KADAM AND ORS VERSUS SHAIKH CHAND MIYA SAHEB DECEASED TH LRS SHAIKH RAHIM SHAIKH CHAND ... Advocate for Petitioners: Mr.Shelke Avishkar S. Advocate for the sole respondent: Mr. S P Deshmukh. ... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. Dated: December 12, 2011 ... PER COURT :- 1. Heard. In Special Darkhast No.5/1982, objection in respect of taking possession was raised by the judgment debtor (petitioner). The rejection of the objection below Exh.1 dated 30th March, 2010 by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Beed, is questioned by the judgment debtor (petitioner). 2. A chequered history of litigation perceives between the parties. In Special Civil Suit No. 33/1972, by judgment and decree dated 27.9.1974, the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, decreed the suit by passing following order: " The plaintiff do obtain possession of the suit land S.No.120/A of Taraf Balguzar Bhir to the extent of 2 acres and 1 guntha only. The parties do bear their own costs of the suit. Decree accordingly." 2 WP No.6617/2010 It is this decree which the writ petitioner (judgment debtor) feels to be confusing as it refers to Survey No.120/A and it has no nexus to judgment debtor's property; being survey No.121, which is to the southern side of the land Survey No.120. The judgment debtor has no objection, if decree is executed in respect of survey No.120/A, excluding the boundary at northern side, to be shown as of one Zarikar. 3. Mr.Shelke invited my attention to entire litigation between the parties. The orders in earlier round of litigation dated 13.8.1985 and orders passed by this Court in Civil Revision Application No.263/1986 whereby he asserts that Respondents (plaintiffs) assertions were rejected. Learned Counsel also took me to the judgment in Special Civil Suit No.33/1972 to inform that the Court did not decree the suit for possession from the land Survey No.121 but, it was a decree from Survey No.120/A for an area of 2 acres, one guntha. 4. The observation in Civil Revision Application No.268/1986 by this Court are to act in tune with the judgment and decree cannot be said to operate against Respondent (plaintiff). Shorn of all details and litigation, the observation of the learned Judge while decreeing the suit (No.33/1972) as a whole will have to be read. He has, in unequivocal terms illustrated, the property to be the suit property is described in paragraph No.2. Paragraph No.2 refers to the four boundaries which 3 WP No.6617/2010 the defendant/judgment debtor/writ petitioner has disputed. Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, did not approve and accept objection of defendant/writ petitioner, decreed the suit with the four boundaries referred in paragraph No.2 of plaint. Now, by simple mistake of referring the land, either survey No.121 or Survey No.120/A, will not change colour and complexion of the suit, to identify the property. It was a purely case of mis-description of quoting wrong survey number. It will not advance to a new property beyond decree. The property is to be identified by the boundaries referred in the plaint and, consequently, I hold that the objections raised by the writ petitioner (judgment debtor) to the execution of the decree are uncalled for. Writ Petition is dismissed. 5. Heard. This order is stayed for a period of two months. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. ) ... agp/6617-10wp