1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3513 OF 2010 Kumar s/o. Bhimrao Solunke ....Petitioner. Versus Dhondiba s/o. Sidram Solanke & Ors. ....Respondents. Mr. V. S. Tanwade, Advocate for petitioner. CORAM : A.A.SAYED, J. DATED : 7th December, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petition takes exception to the order dated 9.3.2010, passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nilanga, whereby the application of the petitioner, who is the judgment debtor, to stop the execution proceeding, came to be rejected. 3. The main contention on which the petitioner was resisting the execution was that in view of section 12 (4) read with sections 21, 27, 29 of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986, Civil Court would have no jurisdiction and therefore, the decree cannot be executed in the suit. 2 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, on a query by the Court, stated that the award under the Land Acquisition Act was passed in the year 1999, which was prior to the filing of the suit. It is therefore clear that this plea, which could and ought to have been taken in the written statement, was not taken by the petitioner. It is well settled that the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree. 5. In the circumstances, no fault can be found in the impugned order so as to cause any interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 6. Petition is dismissed summarily with no order as to costs. [ A. A. SAYED, J. ] ssc/wp3513.10