: 1 : 571-10-cra=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 571 OF 2010 Rajendra Vitthal Bahirat & Ors. .. Applicants v/s. Prakash Ramchandra Girme .. Respondent ......... Mr. R.B. Jagtap, Ashok B. Tajane, M.G. Agre, G.B. Kedia for the applicants Mr. S.A. Sawant for the respondent ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J DATE : 20th SEPTEMBER,2011. P.C. : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mr. Sawant waives service for respondent. By consent, petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. The respondent herein had filed Special Civil Suit No.2152 of 2007 for recovery of possession in respect of property bearing City Survey No. 2A/8/1 admeasuring 3740 sq.ft. i.e. 347.58 sq.meters situate at Bopodi, Tal. Haveli, Dist. Pune. The learned 3rd Additional Small Causes Judge and : 2 : 571-10-cra=.sxw and Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune (hereinafter referred to as the said Court) after conducting trial granted decree in favour of the respondent in regard to property bearing Survey No.2A/8/1 by Judgment and Decree dated 3rd March,2010. This judgment and decree dated 3rd March,2010 is challenged in this petition. 3. I have heard learned Counsel on both sides. In the plaint, there is a specific reference that Survey No.2A/8/1 was once upon a time was referred to as Survey No.2A/7/1/1. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants contended that the respondent has not been able to place before the Court adequate material to show that Survey No.2A/8/1 is equal to old Survey No.2A/7/1/1. He further submitted that if the respondent is trying to execute a decree in regard to Survey No.2A/8/1 of land situate at Bopodi, Tal. Haveli, Dist. Pune, applicants have no objection in execution of the said decree. 4. After having considered the impugned judgment, it is clear that the said Court has not recorded a positive finding that Survey No.2A/8/1 is equal to old Survey No.2A/7/1/1. In my view, if the respondent has came out with a case that the latest Survey No.2A/8/1 number is in respect of : 3 : 571-10-cra=.sxw land in question, there is no need for this Court to go into the question as to which is old survey number. The desire of the respondent is to have possession of the land bearing Survey No.2A/8/1 and that has been granted by the said Court. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to observe that if at all in future if the application is made for execution of the Judgment and Decree dated 3rd March, 2010 impugned in this petition, the said Court shall permit execution as regards land bearing Survey No. 2A/8/1 and enable the respondents to take possession of the said land admeasuring 3740 sq.ft. i.e. 347.58 sq.meters situate at Bopodi, Tal, Haveli, Dist. Pune. To that extent, the decree will have to be modified by deleting words in the decree “i.e. old S. No.2A/7/1/1”. 6. Learned advocate for the applicants had raised contention before this Court that in the plaint, the boundaries of Survey No.2A/8/1 have not been properly given. In my view, it is not necessary for this Court to look into the boundaries of Survey No.2A/8/1 as in the original revenue record, one would be able to identify the boundaries of the said Survey No.2A/8/1 and decree can accordingly be executed. With the aforesaid clarification, : 4 : 571-10-cra=.sxw the Civil Revision Application is disposed of by passing following order. ORDER (i) In the Judgment and Decree dated 3rd March,2010 the words appearing in the operative part of the judgment “i.e. old S.No. 2A/7/1/1” stand deleted and rest of the decree can be executed by the respondent in accordance with the provisions of law. (ii) Civil Revision Application stands disposed of accordingly. (iii) There shall be no order as to costs. (iv) It is clarified that the aforesaid hearing was conducted in the presence of the respondent and the order is also passed in his presence. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)