1 CRA NO.1368/2001 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.1368 OF 2001 Vilas Dattatraya Raut Age: 49 Yrs., occu. Labour R/o Kopargaon, Tq. Kopargaon, District Ahmednagar. = PETITIONER ( Orig.Decree holder) versus 1) Rukmini Dattatraya Raut Age: 58 Yrs. Occu. Household. 2) Bhagirathibai Dattatraya Raut Age: 73 Yrs., occu. Household, Both r/o Kopargaon, Tq.Kopargaon, District Ahmednagar. = RESPONDENTS. (orig.Judgment Debtor) ... Advocate for Petitioner : Mr.Kishor Porwal, Adv. h/for Mr. S D Kulkarni Advocate for Respondent 1 : Mr.VB Anjanwatikar, Adv. h/for Mr. AP Shinde. None appears for Resp.No.2, though served. ***** CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 1st DECEMBER, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1) Heard. Learned Counsel for the respondents informs, Respondent No.1 – Smt. Rukhmini expired long back. Necessary noting is also taken. CRA is already dismissed by order 2 CRA NO.1368/2001 dated 20th April, 2007, vide CA No.5027/2005 to the extent of Smt. Rukhmini, Respondent No.1. 2) None for respondent No.2 though served. 3) Learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kopargaon by order dated 2.8.2000 dismissed Regular Darkhast No.106/1991, observing that in the absence of final decree there could not be execution, oblivious to the fact that it was a preliminary decree seeking partition in RCS No. 419/1978. The observation of the learned Judge is contrary to the law as the Scheme is indicated under Order XX Rule 18 of CPC and particularly sub-clause (2) thereof. The order is set aside. The Darkhast is restored to its original position. 4) CRA is allowed in above terms. sd/- (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/