1 WP 3624.2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3624 OF 2011 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. S.V.Jadhav , Advocate for the Petitioner. .......................... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 09/06/2011 PER COURT : 1. The Writ Petition is filed assailing the Order dated 30/4/2011 passed below Exh. 171 in R.D.No. 5 of 2002. 2. The Decree holder/plaintiff had filed Suit bearing R.C.S. No. 228 of 1981 for possession. The appellate Court in R.C.A. No. 92 of 1992 decreed the said Suit. The present petitioner, who is the Judgment debtor assailed the said Judgment before this Court. The Second Appeal was dismissed. The petitioner assailed the Judgment and the decree passed by this Court before the Supreme Court. The S.L.P. was also dismissed by the Apex Court. 2 WP 3624.2011 3. During the pendency of the darkhast proceedings, the present petitioner moved an application Exh. 171, thereby contending that the description of the property is not properly given. The Suit was contested on the basis of the Survey numbers and now by its new Gut numbers, the same is being referred. In light of that, according to the petitioner, the decree is in executable. The executing court rejected the said objection. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner, who is the judgment debtor has filed the present Writ Petition. 4. The matter was not on board. Mr. S.V.Jadhav, the learned counsel for the petitioner mentioned the matter and at his request the matter is taken at 2.30 p.m. 5. Mr. S.V.Jadhav, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the decree is non est and not executable. Such Gut numbers are given in the execution petition, which were not in the original Suit. As such, no warrant of possession can be issued in respect of the gut numbers. 6. The executing court while dealing with the objection of the petitioner ( Exh. 171), has considered that the boundaries mentioned in the 3 WP 3624.2011 Suit and the execution proceedings are the same and the properties are identifiable by the boundaries. The decree holder has filed the Suit in the year 1981. The present Judgment debtor has litigated the matter up to the Apex Court. Having failed before the Apex Court, the petitioner has raised such an objection. The Decree holder is entitled to get fruits of his decree. 7. The property is identifiable by the boundaries and the boundaries in the suit and the execution proceedings are the same. Simply because by passage of time Survey numbers are converted in Gut numbers, would not make the decree in executable. I do not find any error committed by the executing court in rejecting the application ( Exh. 171 ). 8. The Writ Petition as such is dismissed, however with no order as to costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP 3624.2011