: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.165 OF 2009 Sayed Maqbul Makandar .. Applicant V/s. Mahavir Dhanvir Abandan & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. U.J. Patil for the Applicant. Mr. Rahul Kulkarni for Respondent No.1. Mr. G.M. Savgave for Respondent No.2. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 28 TH JANUARY, 2010. P.C.: 1. The applicant is aggrieved by the order dated 26th February, 2009, passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ichalkaranji, in Regular Civil Suit No.328 of 2008. In the execution proceedings filed against him, the applicant preferred an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This application has been dismissed. 2. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that all these issues which have been raised in the Suit have been agitated by the applicant under Order 21 : 2 : Rule 101 and, therefore, the plaint ought to have been rejected. 3. Undoubtedly, the applicant-defendant was an obstructionist. However, in the present Suit, it is the respondent-plaintiff’s case that the defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 had obtained a decree in collusion thus depriving the plaintiff from his property. According to the plaintiff, the Sale Deed executed in his favour by defendant No.2 with respect to the suit premises is valid. In fact the prayer of the respondent-plaintiff is that the earlier decree passed by the Civil Court should be set aside / cancelled and his Suit be decreed. 4. In my opinion, the Court below has committed no error by dismissing the application of the applicant-defendant. 5. The Civil Revision Application is dismissed. .......