wp9929.10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.9929 OF 2010 Balaji S/o Nivarti Bhikane, R/o-Renapur, Tq-Renapur, Dist-Latur. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The District Collector, Latur, 2) The Deputy Collector, Latur, 3) The Tahsildar, Renapur, 4) The D.I.L.R. Latur, 5) Mahadu S/o Kisan Ingale, R/o-D.I.L.R. Office, Latur, 6) M.I. Pathan, R/o-D.I.L.R. Office, Latur. (Writ Petition is dismissed as against Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 as per order dated 8/11/2011) ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.C.R. Deshpande Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. ... wp9929.10 2 CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL, J. DATE : 2ND DECEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. The Petitioner challenges the order dated 3rd July 2010, passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur in Execution Petition No.97 of 2006. 3. I have perused the impugned order and relevant record placed before me, which is part of the paper book. The trial Court after going through the material placed before it, dismissed the execution petition. The Petitioner's contention was that dead body of Yashodabai was buried in Gat No.1111, whereas the other side stated that it was buried in Gat No.1112. wp9929.10 3 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that Yashodabai died on 1st December, 2006. The present Writ Petition is already dismissed against Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, as per order dated 8th November 2011, passed by this Court. Considering all these aspects of the matter, in exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I do not find that further interference is warranted. The Writ Petition is dismissed. However, in future, in case the Petitioner notices instance of breach of injunction order, the Petitioner is entitled to resort to appropriate remedies as permissible in law. [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/DEC11