LPA No. 270/2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 270 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5781 OF 2011 Bhanudas @ Bhanupratap s/o. Honaji Gajbhiv, R/o. Dr. Ambedkar Chowk, Shevgaon, Tq. Shevgaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. ....Appellant. Versus 1. Shantaram s/o. Sakharam Jondhale, 2. Sau. Kusumbai w/o. Shantaram Jondhale, Both R/o. Mapari Galli, Newasa, Tq. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar. ....Respondents. Mr. V.S. Bedre, Advocate for appellant. Mr. V.D. Sapkal, Advocate for respondents. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & T. V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATED : 29th September, 2011. ORDER : [ PER T. V. NALAWADE, J. ] 1. Heard both the sides. 2. The appeal is filed against the order made in Writ Petition No. 5781/2011. The learned Single Judge of this Court has rejected the petition filed by the appellant in which the order of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shevgaon, District Ahmednagar LPA No. 270/2011 2 passed on Exh. 71 in Regular Darkhast No. 3/2005 was challenged. 3. The execution proceeding is filed by present respondent for executing the decree given in his favour in Regular Civil Suit No. 70/1991 by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shevgaon, District Ahmednagar. The suit was filed in respect of house property which is given number 1915 in the record of village Panchayat Shevgaon (Old House No. 1916). The size of the property was given and it was contended that this property was a part of survey No. 127/3A/2/2. The decree was challenged by the appellant, the original defendant up to the Apex Court, but the decree came to be confirmed. 4. It appears that in the execution proceeding application at Exh. 23 was given by decree holder for appointment of surveyor for ascertaining, identifying the suit property. The surveyor visited the spot and gave the report that the suit property which was described in the suit does not form part of survey No. 127/3A/2/2. The application at Exh. 71 then came to be filed by decree holder for issuing possession warrant. This application came to be allowed. LPA No. 270/2011 3 5. It is the case of the judgment debtor, appellant that the report of Cadastral Surveyor shows that the property described in the plant does not appear to be part of survey No. 127/3A/2/2 and so the decree cannot be executed. Though in the plaint it was contended that it is a part of this survey number, but the description was given in other manner also by contending that in Village Panchayat Record the property is given number as 1915. On the basis of this description the decree is given and it has become final. It can be said that the application at Exh. 23 was unwarranted when decree was given in favour of the respondent. For the purpose of Order VII, Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code also this description was complete. In view of these circumstances the possession warrant has been issued. The learned Single Judge has considered these circumstances and also the map prepared by the Cadastral Surveyor. 6. There is not reason to interfere in the order of the learned Single Judge and so the appeal stands dismissed. [ T. V. NALAWADE, J.] [ NARESH H. PATIL, J.] ssc/