1 CRA-780.11.sxw lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.780 OF 2011 Smt.Malati Appaso Karve & ors. : Petitioners versus Shri Anant Parisa Karve & ors. : Respondents. Mr.Vijay Killedar for the Petitioners. Mr.Rahul S Kulkarni for the Respondents. CORAM : R M SAVANT, J. DATE : 22nd November 2011 P.C. 1 The above Application takes exception to the order dated 11/10/2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Judge, Jaysingpur by which order the Application and Say filed by the State and its officer have been considered in respect of execution of the decree and rejected. The Petitioners herein were the Defendants in Regular Civil Suit No.117/2008. The said suit came to be decreed on 18/10/2010 and the Defendant Nos.1 to 3 i.e. the State and its officers were directed to carry out the measurement as per the Measurement Book No.2551 of 2007. The decree was therefore directed against the State and its officers. After the said decree was passed, it appears that, the Measurement Map dated 9/7/1987 was set aside by the Deputy Superintendent, Land Records, Shirol by order dated 21/4/2011 for the reasons mentioned in the said order. In view of the said order dated 21/4/2011, it appears that an Application and the Say in respect of execution 2 CRA-780.11.sxw of the decree as regards its non-executability were filed by the State and its officers i.e. the Judgment Debtors in the Execution proceedings. The said Say of the officers that the decree could not be executed in view of the cancellation of measurement map as per the order dated 21/4/2011 was not countenanced. The Executing Court was of the view that since the cancellation is after the decree, the judgment debtors would comply with the decree and carry out the measurement without taking cognizance of the cancellation and submit a report. 2 It is further required to be noted that the directions in the decree are not against the present Petitioners but against the State and its officers. The Petitioners had also not filed any application as regards executability of the said decree but are seeking support from the Application and Say filed by the State and its officers. The reason is obvious as the Petitioners may be seeking to stall the execution of the decree on the one pretext or the other. The learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks to rely upon the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court reported in AIR 1983 Bom 277 in the matter of Madhukar Timbak Gore v/s. Vasant Ramkrishna Kolhatkar. There can be no dispute as regards proposition laid down in the said judgment, but in the context of the present facts wherein the decree is directed against the State and its officers, the said judgment would have no application. 3 In my view, the reasons mentioned by the Executing Court in the 3 CRA-780.11.sxw context of the decree that has been passed are unexceptional and do not merit any interdiction at the hands of this Court. In that view of the matter, no case for interdiction is made out. The above Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. [R.M.SAVANT, J]