1 WP NO. 9148/10 lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9148 OF 2010 Chandrakant Raghu Ghodake : Petitioner Versus Bayakka @ Anusaya Hari Ghodake & ors. : Respondents. Mr. N J Patil for the Petitioner. CORAM:- B.R. GAVAI, J DATED :- FEBRUARY 10, 2011. P.C. 1 By the present Petition, the Petitioner challenges the order dated 1st July 2010 by which the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Miraj has allowed the application of the Respondents-Decree Holders for confirmation of possession of Gat No.746 and rejected the application of the present Petitioner for stay for the execution proceedings till the decision of the Regular Civil Suit No.147 of 2010. 2 The Respondents/Plaintiffs had filed a suit being RCS No.241 of 1993 for a decree of possession in respect of the suit property. That suit came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal of the suit, the Respondents/Plaintiffs preferred an Appeal being Appeal No.104 of 2001. The learned District Judge vide judgment and order dated 19th November 2003 allowed the appeal of the Respondents/Plaintiffs and decreed the suit of the Respondents/Plaintiffs by holding that the Appellants/Plaintiffs are entitled to recover and get the possession of the suit property from the Defendants. 2 WP NO. 9148/10 3 An Application came to be filed by the present Petitioner/Defendant submitting therein that he has filed a Regular Civil Suit No.147 of 2010 for a decree of declaration and injunction and, therefore, the execution proceedings should be stayed till the decision of that suit. Another Application came to be filed by the Respondents/Plaintiffs for confirmation of possession of Gat No.746. The Application of the Respondents/Plaintiffs has been allowed and the Application of the present Petitioner/Defendant has been rejected. Hence the present Petition. 4 The learned executing court while passing the order impugned has held that Gat No.746 in respect of which the Applications were filed by the Decree Holders as well as the Judgment Debtor was the subject matter of the decree which has been confirmed up to the SLP. In that view of the matter, the executing court has found that the application of the Decree Holders was liable to be allowed and the application of the Judgment Debtor was liable to be rejected. 5 When the decree in respect of the suit property has been confirmed up to the Apex Court, no error can be found with the approach adopted by the executing court. Hence the present Petition is dismissed. (B.R. GAVAI, J)