1 WP 4496.2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4496 OF 2011 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr.S.G.Jadhavar, Advocate for the Petitioner ............................ CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 25/07/2011 PER COURT : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is the original judgment debtor. The respondent had filed Suit for specific performance of contract in respect of 1 Hector of the land. The said Suit came to be decreed. The said decree came to be confirmed in First Appeal, so also by this Court in Second Appeal. Thereafter, the present respondent filed execution proceedings. Initially, the son of the present petitioner raised an objection under Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the execution of the decree. The said objection was rejected. Thereafter the present petitioner/judgment debtor raised an objection vide Exh. 78 contending that after the agreement 2 WP 4496.2011 of sale was executed in favour of the respondent, thereafter the petitioner has also sold the land and only 44 R. land remains with the petitioner and the land which is allotted in partition to his son is being taken in possession while executing the decree. The said objection is dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. Mr. Jadhavar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the boundaries in the agreement of sale are wrongly mentioned. The petitioner has subsequently executed sale deed in favour of the purchasers, wherein the boundaries are specifically stated. In view of the said boundaries, as stated in the said sale deed, it is clear that the respondent can not have possession of the land as claimed by him. In the year 1979 itself there was partition between the petitioner and his son and the son was allotted land from the western side of land G.No. 422. Now, if the decree as sought is executed, then the land of the son of the petitioner would be taken in possession by the Decree holder. According to the learned counsel, the same is illegal and can not be permitted. 4. The fact that the decree passed by the Court for specific performance of contract in respect of one ( 1 ) Hector of the land as per the boundaries 3 WP 4496.2011 stated therein, is not disputed. The said decree is confirmed up to this Court. Perusal of the order shows that even the son of the present petitioner had filed an objection petition. The said objection is dismissed by the Court. Even if the present petitioner has sold some of the property subsequently during the pendency of the proceedings in the Suit, the same would not bind the decree holder. The present petitioner will not have any locus standi to obstruct the execution of the decree on the ground that some of the property of his son would be taken in possession in view of the fact that the son of the petitioner, who is major had already raised an objection and the same is dismissed. 5. The executing Court will not have any jurisdiction to entertain such objection obstructing the decree in such fashion. The trial Court has properly dealt with the application and the order rejecting the application can not be faulted with. 6. In the result, there is no merit in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition as such is dismissed. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP 4496.2011 4 WP 4496.2011