IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9740 OF 2009 Parmanand Bhimandas Talreja ..... ..... ...Petitioner V/s Pimpri R. Industrial Co-op. Soc. ..... ..... ...Respondent. Mr.Shailendra S. Kanetkar, Adv. for the petitioner. None for the Respondent. CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 30th November, 2009. PC: The present petitioner is decree holder in whose favour a decree for possession of suit premises admeasuring 320 sq. ft. came to be passed. The decree was to put in execution. An obstruction was caused by putting locks on the premises by judgment debtor and hence executing court directed police assistance and ordered breaking open locks and handing over possession to decree holder. The bailiff and the executing party had been to the suit premises for executing possession warrant on 28.9.06. The locks were broke open and possession of the premises was handed over to the petitioner-decree-holder. The decree holder was satisfied with execution of the decree and has also acknowledge the possession of the premises being hand over to him. The suit premises are shop premises and form part of CTS number. After about a month of handing over of possession the petitioner/decree holder moved an application before the execution court makikng grievance that only possession of part of the premises was handed over and not full. The decree holder pleaded that he was put in possession of premises admeasuring 184 sq. ft. instead of 320 sq. 1 ft. The application was purportedly filed under order 21 rule 97 of Code of Civil Procedure with a view to remove obstruction. The judgment debtor objected to the application by contending that after satisfaction of decree in full no application can be moved under section 21 rule 97 of CPC. That would be a stage prior to the execution of decree. The trial court on the basis of material on record has observed that some one else is running the business in portion of suit premises under the name and style of `Shakshi Collections’. The executing court has observed that possibly after execution of the decree at some point of time either the judgment debtor or third party must have come in possession of part of premises. However the said act being subsequent to the execution and satisfaction of the dec4ree in full the court cannot now have recourse to proceedings under order 21 rule 97. The view taken by trial court is possible view which does not call for any interference. No illegality much less patent has been pointed out in the impugned order. Hence there being no merit writ petition deserves to be dismissed. However at this stage learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it be clarified that rejection of present writ petition would not come in way of decree holder in taking out appropriate proceedings against the party who is now in possession of part of suit property. It is obvious that rejection of this petition would not be an impediment in way of decree holder in taking recourse to appropriate proceedings against the person in possession. Writ petition thus stands dismissed. 30.11.2009. 2