1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.55 OF 2009 Limbaji Nagar Housing Society Through Chairman - Sharad s/o Ramakant Ghyal. - PETITIONER VERSUS 1) Mrs. Ismat Ara Begum w/o Abdul Sattar Khan and Ors. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.PM Shah, Sr.Counsel h/for Mr.Suresh M.Kulkarni Advocate for Petitioner; Mr.RN Dhorde, Advocate h/for Mr.VR Dhorde, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 4; Mr.VD Salunke, Advocate for Respondent No.6 (1) to (8); Mr.SS Choudhari, Advocate for Respondent No.11. ----- WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.56 OF 2009. Adinath s/o Limbaji Navle and Ors.- PETITIONERS versus Abdul Sattarkhan s/o Abdul (died) L.Rs. A) Mrs. Ismat Ara Begum and Ors. - RESPONDENTS. _____ Mr.VD Salunke, Advocate for Petitioners; Mr.RN Dhorde, Adv. h/for Mr.VR Dhorde, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1-A to D; Mr.RL Kute, Advocate for Resp.Nos. 2-A and 2-B. Mr.SS Choudhari, Advocate for Respondent No.3 2 Mr.SM Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent No.4. ***** CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 11th March, 2010. PER COURT : 1) Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties extensively. 2) A chequered history of litigation has now reached a stage of effecting measurement and then carrying separate demarcation to the sharers of original plaintiff no.1 – Abdul Sattar Khan who was found entitled to 19 acres and 30 gunthas. An application was moved before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Beed being Misc.Civil Application No.51/2009 by the subsequent purchasers, the Cooperative Housing society for recalling the order of sending the decree for partition in terms of Section 54 of Civil Procedure Code pursuant to Misc.CA No. 63/2008. 3 3) The chequered history highlighted by the respective Counsel can be put in condensed form as under : (i) Special Civil Suit No.14/1973 for possession in respect of agricultural propertys bearing Survey Nos. 30 and 31 against Adinath and others was filed. It was decreed on 25th August, 1977 . (ii) First Appeal No. 748/1977 was moved. There was Cross-objection being Stamp No.149/1978 and another First Appeal No. 618/1979 and 257/1979. This Court after hearing extensively in the said proceedings, confirmed the decree with certain directions. (iii) It is more than clear, by the directions of this Court, half share of Abdul Sattar Khan in the property remained unaltered, undisturbed. It is the only question of demarcation of his share by maintaining equity, as was indicated in the 4 order. (iv) The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, on hearing the parties, was justified, in rejecting the application, as the directions of this Court in FA No.748/1977 along with 618/1979, particularly paragraphs 39, 41 and 42, were sending a clear message as to what is to be done, and sent the papers to the learned Collector for effecting the measurement or compliance of directions of this Court. 4) A notice which is at page 24 (Exhibit-B) by T.I.L.R.,Beed illustrate, causing of measurement and seeking assistance from the respective parties. Incidentally, it has referred a term “Watap” (distribution) which has been dissected threadbare by the learned Sr. Counsel representing one of the cooperative housing society, the purchaser. The fact remains, the T.I.L.R. has to comply with the orders of this Court in its letter and spirit and 5 after marking the properties, the share of Abdul Sattar Khan to the extent of 19 acres and 30 gunthas, will have to be carved out. I do not see any illegality in the directions by the learned CJSD by the order dated 30th April, 2009 or the subsequent notice issued by T.I.L.R. to the parties litigating dated 28.5.2009. 5) Both the Civil Revision Applications rejected. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/cra55.09