1 (CRA 250 of 2011) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 250 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.176 OF 2011 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 250 OF 2011 Smt. Premlata Vishwanath Hidendlekar and Ors. ...Petitioners vs. Smt. Shantabai Sakaram More ...Respondent ----- Mr.S.H. Mishra for Petitioners ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 23rd March, 2011 P.C. 1. By this Civil Revision Application, the Petitioners are challenging the order passed by the Executing Court on 9.2.2011 in application below Exhibit-21 in Execution Application No. 86 of 2010. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the ex-parte decree was passed against the Petitioners in respect of premises admeasuring 7x7 sq.ft. Initially, the warrant of possession was issued and the Bailiff submitted his report that the obstructionist had agreed to give possession of 7x7 sq.ft. of the suit premises but refused to give the possession of the entire premises. Therefore, 2 (CRA 250 of 2011) an application was made seeking police protection for the purpose of executing the decree. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submits that the area of the premises is much more than 7x7 sq.ft. and, therefore, the warrant of possession ought not to have been issued by the Executing Court. It is submitted that the premises has not been described in the plaint and/or in the decree and as such, the warrant of possession could not have been issued by the Executing Court in respect of the premises in which the Petitioners are residing. 4. It is an admitted position that the execution decree was passed in 1993 and obstruction proceedings were taken out and finally the said obstruction proceedings were also dismissed and the warrant of possession was issued. On two occasions, the Petitioner obstructed the execution of the said decree and did not hand over the possession. Therefore, the impugned order was passed by the Executing Court. The Executing Court has observed that after going through the plaint and judgment, the Executing Court has stated that the premises has been described as room admeasuring 7x7 sq.ft. The Executing Court has further observed that in the judgment of the suit, the Trial Court had observed 3 (CRA 250 of 2011) that certain additions were made by the Petitioners in the said room by converting the open space adjoining the premises admeasuring 7x7 sq.ft. In my view, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Executing Court. No case is made out for interfering with the order by exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. The learned counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that he has filed an appeal against the ex- parte decree passed. He submits that the warrant of possession may not be executed for a period of four weeks. 6. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the warrant of possession shall not be executed for a period of four weeks from today. After expiry of four weeks, the warrant of attachment shall execute subject to any order being passed by the Appellate Court. Civil Revision Application is dismissed. Civil Application does not survive and is also disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)