1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.2937 of 2010 Dattatraya Bapu Kaldhone (deceased) Housabai Dattatraya Kaldhone & ors. ... Petitioners versus Mahadeo Martand Gujar Since deceased, Shri Popat M. Gujar & ors. ... Respondents ... Mr. Dilip Bodake for the petitioner. Mr.Vishwanath Talkute for respondent no.1. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 7th July 2010 P.C. 1. Heard. 2. By this petition, petitioner – judgment debtor challenges the order dated 17 March 2010 passed by the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Mhasvad in an execution petition. 3. Suit filed by respondent nos.1 and 2 for possession by removal of the encroachment was decreed by the trial court. The decree was confirmed by the appellate court as well as by this court in second 2 appeal. Thereafter, respondent nos.1 and 2 filed an execution petition for execution of the decree. Petitioner resisted the execution by obstructing the bailiff who had gone for execution of the decree. Respondent nos.1 and 2 therefore filed an application at Exhibit 30 for police protection. Petitioner filed two applications, one for seeking an explanation from TILR and second for stay to the execution proceedings. The applications of the petitioner were rejected while the application of respondent nos.1 and 2 for police protection was granted. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the map, which is part of the decree, does not show the encroachment in survey no. 574/3. He further submitted that the surveyor who had examined has not stated about the encroachment in Survey No.574/3 and therefore surveyor should have been recalled for seeking his explanation in the execution proceedings. 5. It is settled principle of law that executing court cannot go behind the decree. The executing court is required to execute the decree as passed by the court and cannot seek any clarification from the witnesses which were examined in the suit. The map prepared by the surveyor is on record and is made part of the decree. Consequently, the executing court committed no error in refusing to call the surveyor for further evidence and also for granting police protection to the respondents for execution of the decree. The Writ Petition is rejected summarily. 5. Request of the petitioner for stay of the operation of this order is rejected. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)