IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 64/2010 (Chotu Baliram Sarve vrs. Chandrashekhar Purushottamrao Khandalkar) ................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................... Shri N.G.Solao, adv. for petitioner Shri S.S.Ghoate, adv. for respondent ... CORAM : R. K.DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 18th OCTOBER, 2010. This C.R.A challenges the order dated 26.02.2010 passed by the IIIrd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhandara, directing the demolition of the wall touching the southern side of the wall of the decree-holder's house in Regular Darkhast No. 36/2008. 2. The applicant/petitioner is the judgment debtor and the respondent is the decree holder. A suit filed by the respondent/original plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court. However, appeal filed by the respondent/plaintiff was allowed and the defendant/ petitioner was permanently restrained from effecting construction of the portion of his wall so as to close the remaining two open ventilators on the southern wall of the plaintiff's house and to obstruct the light and air to the plaintiff's house through these ventilators. 3. An application came to be filed in Regular Darkhast No. 36/2008 under Order 21, Rule 32(5) of C.P.C. seeking direction to the judgment debtor to demolish the construction touching the southern side of the wall of the decree-holder's house. The applicant/ judgment debtor filed his reply stating that he is willing to demolish the wall and slab and to make the new construction by keeping the space between the wall of the judgment debtor's house and the wall of the decree holder within one month subject to the condition that the decree holder withdraws from his conduct. 4. The evidence was led by the parties. The trial Court has, after taking into consideration the evidence of the parties, recorded a finding that the judgment debtor has failed to establish that there was consent of the decree holder for construction of the said wall. It has further been held that such an understanding has not been established and it has been proved that the order passed by the appellate Court has been breached. Hence, the demolition was ordered. 5. Shri Solao, the learned counsel, submits that there was a consent from the decree holder for such construction. The evidence was also led, however, the trial Court has not accepted the said plea and recorded a finding that the judgment debtor has failed to establish any such understanding between the defendant and the plaintiff. 6. In view of this, there is no jurisdictional error pointed out in the findings recorded by the trial Court. There is no perversity in recording such finding, pointed out. There is no substance in the revision application. The same is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE Rvjalit