( 1 ) sa366.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 366 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9336 OF 2011 Ramesh s/o. Annappa Waghole .. Appellant Versus Taherabegum w/o. Khairat @ Khurshid Patel .. Respondents and Ors. Mr. S.S. Choudhari, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. M.M. Patil (Beedkar), Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 12.09.2011 P.C. :- 1. This Second Appeal challenges the concurrent findings of the Court below that the appellant/objection petitioner in Special Darkhast No. 17 of 2008 has no case for preventing the execution of the decree. The suit land is Survey No. 97-A which admeasures 6 H 37 R. Admittedly, this land was sold to the predecessor of the appellant – one Apparao. After this sale, respondent – Taherabugum etc. filed a suit for partition of this land and other lands. They claimed that their undivided share was unauthorizedly sold by their family members. Their suit was decreed and the appellant is now facing execution. He is likely to lose certain area of the suit-land. ( 2 ) sa366.11 2. It so happened that in the suit filed by Taherabugum and others, there were two lands, one as stated above was Survey No. 97-A and other was a land which was unauthorizedly sold to one Anilkumar. The dispute in respect of this land is still pending. A Second Appeal is pending in between Taherabugum and others versus Anilkumar. 3. The present appellant mainly took up an objection saying that if the dispute between Anilkumar and Taherabugum and others is decided in favour of Taherabugum and others, the land sold to Anilkumar would also be partitioned and in such event, he says, the partition of land Gat No. 217 would be different and that he is then likely to lose less area. I am afraid, this objection is unsustainable because Taherabugum and others - plaintiffs/decree-holders, even in that event would insist on their share in Gat No. 217 and so also they may insist on their share in the other land sold to Anilkumar. The partition in such situation would also not likely to be different. There is no possibility for the appellant to protect his interest any further. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant also contended that the Courts below ignored one glaring defect in the proceedings and the appellant was not given an opportunity to lead evidence. I am afraid, this cannot be taken seriously because there was no question ( 3 ) sa366.11 of fact between the parties in the execution because as said above, the objection was based on the pendency of the other dispute. The appeal, therefore, should fail. The appeal is dismissed. 5. In view of dismissal of the Second Appeal, the connected Civil Application for stay does not survive and stands disposed of. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] snk/2011/SEP11/sa366.11ok