1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGBAD. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of | coram, appearance, court’s orders |Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’ orders| WRIT PETITION NO.4459/2009 ... Shri M.P.Gude,Adv. for Petrs. Shri R.P.Adgaonkar,Adv.for Respondent ... CORAM : R.K.DESHPANDE,J. DATE : 27/7/2010. 1] This Writ Petition challenges the order dated 8/6/2009 passed below Exh. 85 by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Latur in Regular Darkhast No. 17/1997. By this order, application Exh. 85 filed by the decree holder for issuance of warrant of possession under Order XXI Rule 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of suit property was allowed. The order impugned in this Application has been executed and the possession is taken over by the decree holder. 2] The learned counsel for the 2 petitioner submits that he had filed an Objection dated 15/9/2008 in execution proceedings and is claiming right as a tenant in possession of the property. As per the objection raised by the petitioner who was entitled to remain in possession for 25 years on the basis of the agreement dated 23/8/1990, the petitioner objector has filed Regular Civil Suit No.532/08. The application filed for injunction in the said suit by the petitioner has been rejected. The petitioner has preferred an Appeal, which is pending alongwith the application for injunction, which is not decided till this date. 3] In view of the aforesaid position, the order impugned is already executed, the objection filed by the petitioner is yet to be decided. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the matter has been adjourned from time to time at the request of the objector. The learned counsel for the objector however, disputes this position. Be that as it may, injunction application has also been rejected by the trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No.532/08. If the petitioner succeeds in his objection before the 3 executing Court or in his Regular Civil Suit No.532/08, he will be entitled to seek restoration of possession. Hence, no interference is called for in the order impugned in this Petition. The petition is therefore, dismissed. It is made clear that dismissal of this Petition shall not come in the way of the petitioner in prosecuting the Regular Civil Suit No. 532/08 in accordance with law. The trial Court to decide application Exh.67 as expeditiously as possible. (R.K.DESHPANDE) JUDGE umg/wp4459-09 4