1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 3544 OF 2007 (Mukhram Singh Inderdeep Singh .v. Manoramabai Bhimrao Dandi) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri S.D. Khati, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sudhir Malode, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : R.V. MORE, J. 06TH MAY, 2008. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. By the order dated 02.04.2007 passed in Regular Darkhast No.242/2005, the trial Court allowed the respondent's application at Exh.61 to provide police aid to execute the decree fully on payment of requisite charges. The petitioner filed separate application at Exh.65 in aforesaid execution proceedings for review of the order passed below Exh.61. This application was also dismissed by the executing Court on 23.07.2007. The petitioner is challenging both the orders by filing the present petition. Shri S.D. Khati, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the trial Court's decree of removal of construction of wall made in seven 2 feet wide passage is already executed and to that effect bailiff has also filed report on 24.12.2007. In spite of this execution, the respondent filed an application at Exh.61 for police aid which came to be granted without assigning any reason. Shri Sudhir Malode, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the contrary, submitted that the decree was not fully executed and the petitioner/judgment debtor has again constructed new wall on the site of about 6 ft. 10 inches from eastern boundary and, therefore, an application at Exh.61 was required to be filed. After perusing the reply filed by the petitioner to the respondent's application at Exh.61, I do not find any denial by the petitioner regarding respondent's assertions about reconstruction of the wall. In the present petition also, the petitioner nowhere stated that he has not reconstructed the wall. Shri S.D. Khati, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shew Bux Mohata and another .v. Bengal Breweries Limited and others (reported in AIR 1961 SC 137) and submitted that once the decree is fully satisfied, it cannot be again executed. In my view the ratio laid down by Apex Court 3 in the said judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case because it is the specific contention of the respondent that the decree is not fully satisfied and the petitioner reconstructed the wall. In that view of the matter, I do not find any error or perversity in the approach adopted by the trial Court and, therefore, do not feel it necessary to interfere in my jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is dismissed as such. JUDGE *rrg.