1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1193 OF 2010 Vinayak V. Ingle Vs. Rajni V. Ingle & Others Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's Orders ________________________________________________________________________________ Shri Mohammed Ateeque Adv., for petitioner. CORAM: B. P. DHARMADHIKARI J. Dated: 11 th MARCH, 2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It is apparent that the petitioner is trying to go beyond decree by pointing out that wrong survey number has been recorded in that decree. Before the effort is made to demonstrate that error by pointing out a deed of partition and also sale deed. However, impugned order is passed on application at Ex. 63 in Regular Darkhast No. 1 of 2003. It appears that executing Court has executed a sale deed in favour of decree holder and decree holder is seeking possession of property as described in that sale deed. It is, therefore clear that the executing Court has appointed TILR only for the purpose of 2 demarcation of the property as described in sale deed. The objection to appointment of TILR in present petition on the grounds mentioned above by petitioner is therefore misconceived. The petitioner cannot request executing Court to ignore the decree and to ignore the sale deed executed by it. If the petitioner has got any remedy open to him in the matter, he is free to avail the same in accordance with law. No case is made out in warranting any interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. JUDGE svk 3 4 5