1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Writ Petition No.3151/2010 ( Shri Sant Gulababa Sevashram, through its President -: versus :- Avinash S/o Shrawan Umarkar & others ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri R.A. Gupte, Adv. for petitioner. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JULY 15, 2010. Petitioner claiming to be in possession and filed objection under section 47 read with 151 of Civil Procedure Code in Regular Darkhast No.3/2006 contending that it is in possession since last 45 years and hence execution cannot be proceeded against it. The Trial Court has considered the material on record and found that objector (petitioner) has encroached and constructed one room there. According to the learned counsel, for this purpose Trial court has relied upon adjudication in R.C.S. No.91/1991 to which petitioner was not party. It is pointed out that R.C.S. No.91/1991 came to be filed against judgment debtor and in that J.Dr. had stated that his father asked original owner of suit plot to donate it for establishing Darbar of Gulababa i.e. petitioner. According to him, the suit plot then came to be donated. These facts are found to be not established in civil suit and in also appeal from it. The J.Dr. is working with objector only. The contention of objector is it is registered vide registration 2 No.166/1988. These contentions need to be appreciated in the background of the story pressed into service by J.Dr. It is clear that objector has stepped into only to assist the J.Dr. Reliance is being placed on judgment of learned Single Judge reported in 2008 (1) Bom. C.R. 111 (Sharad Gajanan Ambole & Ors. V/s. Gauramma Kumarappa Medar & Ors.) wherein this Court has found that executing Court has to give full opportunity to such objector. Because of inherent inconsistencies in the matter, it is apparent that view taken by the executing Court cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse. Petitioner has not demonstrated its bonafide at all. Writ petition is therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE Tambaskar.