1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.8744 of 2009 Shantaram Ramchandra Patil ... Petitioner versus Chandulal Mohanlal Jadhav & Anr ... Respondents ... Mr. Nitin Deshpande for the petitioner. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 25th June 2010 P.C. 1. Office noting shows that respondent no.2 has died. The Court had also noted this by an order dated 9 March 2010. Till today, no steps have been taken for substituting his name by legal heirs. Writ Petition against respondent no.2 stands dismissed as he is dead. 2. The present petitioner is judgment debtor. In an execution proceedings by the respondent no.1 plaintiff, he filed an application that the decree passed by the Court in Special Civil Suit No.944 of 1992 was vague and not executable against him. The application was rejected by an order dated 24 February 2004. Review Application made by him was also rejected by an order dated 25 August 2008. These orders are impugned in the present writ petition. 2 3. The decree directed the petitioner (judgment debtor) to return 160 centering plates which were given by the respondent no.1 to him on hire. The decree further stated that in the event of failure to return the judgment debtor would be liable to pay compensation @ Rs.40/- per sq.ft to the decree holder. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the size of centering plates was not mentioned in the decree, the compensation amount cannot be determined and the decree is vague and therefore incapable of execution. Secondly, it is contended that the decree has been passed jointly and not severally against the petitioner and the respondent no.2 who has since died. Therefore liability of the petitioner is unascertained. In case of joint judgment debtors, the decree holder is entitled to execute the decree against any judgment debtor. Hence, the second objection does not survive. As regards the first objection, the size of the centering plate is capable of being determined by the executing court and therefore it cannot be said that the decree is vague and unexecutable. No other point was urged. There is no merit in the writ petition which is hereby rejected. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)