1 CIV.R.A.NO.195/2010 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 2. CRA/195/2010 SHIVCHATRAPATI VACHANALAYA [Civil] KANHERWADI THROUGH PRESIDENT V/S THE GRAMPANCHAYAT KANHERWADI THROUGH SARPANCH With CA/7064/2011 THE GRAMPANCHAYAT KANHERWADI THROUGH SARPANCH V/S SHIVCHATRAPATI VACHAN- ALAYA KANHERWADI In CRA/195/2010 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. T.G.Gaikwad, Adv., h/f Mr.V.D.Salunke, Adv., for the petitioner. Shri M.B.Kolpe, Adv., for R.1. Mr.K.J.Ghute Patil, Adv., for R.3. Respondent Nos. 2 and 5 served. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:NOVEMBER 11th, 2011 1. Heard. 2. There was a decree dated 12.11.2008 in favour of the petitioner whereby the defendant ( respondent) was restrained by an order of permanent injunction from dispossessing the petitioner (plaintiff) from suit land otherwise 2 CIV.R.A.NO.195/2010 than by following due process of law. 3. Regular Darkhast being No. 42/2009 was moved and below Exh.41, an application was accelerated by the petitioner. The same came to be dismissed by the learned executing Court by order dt.30.10.2010. On perusal of the said order, I find, observations of the learned Judge about the decree or the findings in the suit, are beyond the scope of inquiry contemplated which the learned Judge was required to undertake. The learned Judge, being an executing Court, had no authority in law to travel to the area, beyond the decree. 3. With the above observation, rest of the findings do not call for any interference. Civil Revision Application disposed of with Civil Application (No.7064/2011). (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE AGP/195-10cra