IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4649/2008 Rajendra Lakhe ..vs.. Vasant Shinde ================================= CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE:23.10.2008 Heard advocate Puri for petitioner. The contention is the executing court ought to have given the petitioner opportunity to lead evidence. Judgment of learned Single Judge of Hon. Bench reported at AIR 1990 Punjab & Haryana 92 is being pressed into service only by reading placetum. The question is put to learned counsel to point out fact as to which evidence is to be given. He is not in a position to point out a single disputed fact in relation to which he on behalf of judgment debtor needs to lead evidence before executing court. At this stage attention is invited to paragraph 6 to state that actually the plot is greater than as mentioned in the original plaint or in the decree. The objection raised is that suit property is not described properly. The executing court found that in earlier litigation filed by petitioner the property was described similarly. Objection has therefore been overruled. It is apparent that there is no question of leading evidence when the properties is identifiable. No case is made out warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition dismissed. No cost. JUDGE smp.