1 WP No.3790/11 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3790 of 2011 Yashwant Krishna Vengurlekar ... Petitioner versus Sunil Narayan Bhowar & ors. ... Respondents ... Mr.Madhav Jamdar for the petitioner. Mr.Kanchan Sadashiv Kambli for respondent no.1. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 19th July 2011 P.C. 1. In Regular Civil Suit no.4 of 1995 field by respondent nos.1 and 15, a decree for partition was passed by the Civil Judge, Jr. Division of an agricultural land bearing Survey No.729, Hissa No. 1/4. Thereafter, execution petition no.24 of 1999 was filed by the respondent no.1. The notice of the execution petition was served on the petitioner and all the respondents and the entry to that effect is found in the roznama dated 8 March 2000. 2. It however appears that thereafter the execution proceedings was not proceeded with as the petitioner had filed an appeal bearing Regular Civil Appeal No.23 of 2002 in the District Court. 2 WP No.3790/11 After dismissal of the appeal, the respondent no.1 moved the executing court for proceeding further with the darkhast and accordingly by an order dated 9 December 2004, the executing court issued a direction to the Collector for effecting partition of agricultural land in accordance with section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Seven years after the said direction, petitioner moved an application to the executing court with the prayer to cancel the direction issued to the Collector for effecting partition alleging that its order dated 9 December 2004 was illegal and void. He also made another application for stay of the precept sent to the Collector. 3. By an order dated 23 February 2011, the Court rejected the application for stay. In my view, the application made by the petitioner for stay of the precept sent to the collector as also the present writ petition is an abuse of the process of the court. After having suffered a decree for partition and having unsuccessfully challenged it in an appeal, the petitioner approached the executing court, seven years after its order for setting aside the precept sent to the Collector for effecting a partition and for stay of it. Under section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the decree for partition of agricultural land is required to be sent to the Collector for effecting actual partition and the executing court has committed no error in sending it for partition to the Collector. Petition is accordingly rejected. (D.G.KARNIK, J)