: 1 : 6806-11-WPs-C=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6806 OF 2011 Muznabi Nizamuddin Jalal & Ors. .. Petitioners v/s. Abid Ali Jafferali Sayyed .. Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6917 OF 2011 Muznabi Nizamuddin Jalal & Ors. .. Petitioners v/s. Mariambai Ahmed Memon .. Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6918 OF 2011 Muznabi Nizamuddin Jalal & Ors. .. Petitioners v/s. Nitin Prabhakar Zende & Anr. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6916 OF 2011 Muznabi Nizamuddin Jalal & Ors. .. Petitioners v/s. Leelabai Gopal Bagade .. Respondents ......... Mr. M.S. Kadu for the petitioners Mr. Prakash Mahadik for the respondents ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J DATE : 5th OCTOBER,2011. : 2 : 6806-11-WPs-C=.sxw P.C. : 1. All these writ petitions involved a common point. Order dated 26th July, 2011 passed by learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kalyan, Dist. Thane is challenged in each of these petitions. I have heard learned advocates on both sides. A perusal of the impugned orders would go to show that the decree came to be passed against the petitioners in respect of suits for specific performance and execution application came to be filed in each of the suit. That execution application has been attended to by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kalyan and has by the impugned order in each of the petition, directed that possession warrant should be issued against the petitioners returnable on 23rd August, 2011. 2. After having perused the impugned order, it is clear that the petitioners have no defence to the execution of the decree and it is obligatory upon them to comply with the order. 3. Some attempt was made by the learned advocate for the petitioners to submit that there is an order of injunction running against the : 3 : 6806-11-WPs-C=.sxw petitioners. The argument advanced by learned advocate for the petitioners that injunction issued against the petitioners is in respect of the suit property. The learned Judge has considered that aspect and has issued possession warrant. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required in the impugned order. 4. After the arguments were over, learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners be given time for about 6 months to handover the possession. This submission on the part of the petitioners falsifies the earlier stand about the injunction issued against the petitioners. 5. It was lastly submitted by the petitioners that the respondents will have to vacate the temporary accommodation given to them. So far as this aspect is concerned, it is not the job of this Court to look into as to whether respondents will have to vacate temporary accommodation. Petitioners will have to comply with the warrant of possession. In the facts and circumstances of the case, each of the petition deserve to be dismissed. Hence, each of the petition is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)