1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 121/2011 (Salmabi A. Usman & another VERSUS Sajid Hussain Mulla Shaiffuddin Jasvi) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri N.R. Saboo, counsel for the petitioners. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 14 , 2011 . Heard. By this petition, the petitioners impugn the orders passed by the Executing Court on 30.04.2010 and 14.07.2010. By the order dated 30.04.2010, the application filed by the petitioners for appointment of Taluka Inspector of Land Records for identification of the suit property was rejected. By the order dated 14.07.2010, the Executing Court rejected the application filed by the petitioners to review the order dated 30.04.2010. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the documents annexed to the petition along with the impugned orders, it appears that the petitioners are trying to protract the execution proceedings by filing applications before the Execution Court. The Executing Court considered the fact that previously also the petitioners- Judgment Debtors had filed applications before the Executing Court for appointment of Taluka Inspector of Land Records for identification of the property. The Executing Court had 2 rejected those applications. In spite of the rejection of the same, a similar application was filed before the Executing Court and the Executing Court had, therefore, rightly rejected the application by the impugned order dated 30.04.2010. The Executing Court rightly observed that the bailiff of the court had clearly identified the properties on the basis of the boundaries and he had filed a report in that regard. The Executing Court observed that in the previous orders also, it had been observed by the Executing Court that the decree was executable on the basis of the four boundaries of the suit property as mentioned in the decree. The Executing Court found that there was no reason whatsoever for appointment of Taluka Inspector of Land Records for identification of the suit property. The Executing Court further found that there was no error in the order dated 30.04.2010 and, therefore, the review application was also liable to be rejected. There is no error whatsoever in the orders passed by the Executing Court and it is clear that the petitioners are filing one application after another to protract the proceedings filed by the Decree Holder before the Executing Court. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is dismissed with costs. JUDGE APTE