( 1 ) wp2518.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2518 OF 2011 Smt. Saraswati Bhaguji Vairal & Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Rajabhau Sukhdev Vairal & Ors. .. Respondents Shri K.S. Bhore, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri V.D. Hon, Advocate for respondent No.1. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 29.03.2011 P.C. :- 1. Heard Adv. Shri K.S. Bhore for the petitioners/ (J.D.) and Adv. Shri V.D. Hon for respondent No.1. 2. The Executing Court has granted police aid to respondent No.1 to harvest the sugarcane crop in pending execution - R.D. No. 7 of 2007. The objection to its maintainability has been rejected because of orders of this Court dated 4th February, 2011 in Contempt Petition No. 55 of 2011. This Court in those proceedings without issuing notice to the respondents found that the grievance of the petitioners would be taken care of by seeking police aid from ( 2 ) wp2518.11 the Executing Court. 3. Adv. Shri Bhore has contended that the judgment and decree of the Trial Court which was sought to be executed in R.D. No. 7 of 2007 has been set aside in Regular Civil Appeal and the Second Appeal filed by respondent No.1 against it is admitted. Therefore, at this stage, the judgment and decree of the Trial Court cannot be executed. In the alternate and without prejudice, he has invited attention to provisions of Order 21 Rule 32 the C.P.C. to urge that the decree for injunction can at the most be executed by detention in civil prison as specified in sub-rule (1) or in the manner prescribed in Order 39 Rule 2-A of C.P.C. He further states that efforts made by the present petitioners to obtain vacation of interim orders passed in Second appeal by this Court on 30th April, 2010, have still not materialized as their application has not been listed before this Court till date. 4. Adv. Shri Hon is supporting the order. ( 3 ) wp2518.11 5. After hearing the respective counsel I find that the provisions of Section 36 of the C.P.C. permit the execution of orders also and hence grievance of the petitioners about tenability of execution proceedings is not very relevant at this stage. In Contempt Petition, this Court has found it necessary to permit the petitioner to harvest the sugarcane crop and he was permitted to obtain police aid. After hearing the petitioners, order granting police aid to respondent No.1 has been passed. 6. If the petitioners are aggrieved by any interim order passed in Second Appeal or by this Court in its contempt jurisdiction that grievance cannot be considered here by this Court. 7. In the circumstances with liberty to the petitioner to take such measures as are open in law, present petition is disposed of. No costs. [B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.] snk/2011/MAR11/wp2518.11