:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 609 OF 2010 1. Shri Sadanand Dattatray Gaitonde, 2. Shri Ramakant Dattatray Gaitonde, ( since deceased ) 3. Smt. Sharayu Dattatray Gaitonde, 4. Shri Avadhut Dattatray Gaitonde, (since deceased ) 5. Late Smt. Jayanti Avadhut Gaitonde, ( since deceased ) by legal representatives : a. Shri Amrut Avdhut Gaitonde, 6. Shri Laxmikant Dattatray Gaitonde, 7. Smt. Ujwala Gaitonde, 8. Shri Suresh Dattatray Gaitonde, 9. Shri Narayan Suresh Gaitonde, 10. Shri Umakant Dattatray Gaitonde, 11. Shri Daya Umakant Gaitonde, 12. Shri Shashikant Dattatray Gaitonde, 13. Smt. Sunanda Verlekar, 14. Avadhut Verlekar, The petitioners at Sr.Nos. 1 to 5(a) & 8 to 12 are residing at Panaji Goa. The petitioners at Sr.Nos. 6 and 7 are residing at Sankhali Goa The petitioners at Sr. Nos. 13 and 14 are residing at Tonca, Panaji Goa. … Petitioners :2: V e r s u s 1. Shrimat Satchidanand Saraswati ( since deceased ) by his successor, Shrimat Shivanand Saraswati Swami, Shri Gaud Padacharya Math, At Kavle, Ponda Taluka Goa. Shrimat Satchidanand Saraswati ( since deceased ) Guru Shrimat Purnanand Saraswati Swami, as head of Kavlem Math, by his successor, Shrimat Shivanand Saraswati Swami, present Head of Kavlem Math, Residing at Kavlem, Ponda Goa. 2. Shri Amit Avadhut Gaitonde, 3. Shri Prafulla Desai, 4. Shri Shivaji Dessai, 5. Late Smt. Durga Narendra Rege, ( since deceased ) By legal representatives : a. Shri Narendra Rege ( since deceased ) b. Smt. Madhushri Ashok Tupat, c. Shri Ashok Tupat, d. Smt. Neemesha Manish Divecha, e. Shri Manish Divecha, 6. Shri Narendra Rege, ( since deceased ) The respondents at Sr.Nos. 3 and 4 are residing at Mandrem, Goa. The respondents at Sr.Nos. 5 and 6 are residing at Corlim, Mapusa Goa. … Respondents Shri S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Ms V. Palyekar, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri A. N. S. Nadkarni, Senior Advocate with Mr. A. J. Kenkre with Mr. H. D.Naik, Advocates for the respondent no.1. :3: CORAM : F. M. REIS, J DATE : 4 th OCTOBER, 2011 . ORAL ORDER Heard Shri S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri A. N. S. Nadkarni, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent no.1. 2. The above petition challenges the order dated 28.07.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Bicholim, in Execution Application No. 1/2007. The respondent no.1 was a Decree Holder who has filed the above Execution Proceedings to execute the decree dated 02.04.1992 passed in Special Civil Suit No. 94/1976 which was confirmed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mapusa in Regular Civil Appeal No. 27/1992 and thereafter confirmed by this Court whilst disposing the Second Appeal No. 65/2004. The judgment debtors are the petitioners in the above Writ Petition. 3. By the said decree, the judgment debtors/petitioners herein were inter alia directed to demolish :4: the structures designated by numbers 9, 10 and 13 in the plan which was originally attached to the plaint filed by respondent no.1. 4. The main dispute raised by the petitioners to the application for execution is with regard to the identity of the structure nos. 9 and 10 as directed by the decree. With regard to the identity of the structure no. 13, there was no dispute raised by the petitioners. The learned Judge whilst passing the impugned order dated 28.07.2010, called for the record and proceedings in the original suit and found that the plan which was at Exhibit PW6/A was the same plan which was attached to the plaint and found that the identity of the structures designated by numbers 9 and 10 were clearly depicted in the said plan. The learned Judge as such directed the bailiff of the Court to demolish the structures as designated by numbers 9, 10 and 13 in Exhibit PW6/A. 5. Shri S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has pointed out that the plan which is at Exhibit PW6/A is not the plan which was attached to the plaint and as such the conclusion drawn by the learned Judge whilst passing the impugned order to direct the :5: demolition of the structures designated by numbers 9 and 10 as shown in the plan is misplaced. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the structures were identified in the plaint as cow sheds and as such according to him the structures designated by numbers 9 and 10 as shown in the said plan cannot corresponds to the disputed structures as directed to be demolished by the decree. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that there is no reference to Exhibit PW6/A in the operative part of the decree and as such the learned Judge was not justified to come to the conclusion that the structures designated by numbers 9 and 10 were the same structures as shown in the plan at Exhibit PW6/A. The learned Counsel as such pointed out that the structures which were ordered to be demolished have already been demolished by the petitioners and there is nothing remaining to be executed by the decree passed in the suit. 6. On the other hand, Shri A. N. S. Nadkarni, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 has pointed out that the learned Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the plan at Exhibit PW6/A was the same plan as annexed to the plaint filed by respondent no.1. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the contention of the :6: petitioners that they have already complied with the decree as the structures have already collapsed cannot be accepted as according to him, the said structures designated by numbers 9 and 10 are still existing at the site and as such the petitioners are required to be demolished the said structures pursuant to decree passed in the suit. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the objections raised by the petitioners about the identity of the structures designated by numbers 9 and 10 are totally farfetched and according to him the whole exercise of the petitioners is only to delay the execution of the decree. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that there is no jurisdictional error committed by the executing Court whilst passing the impugned order and as such no interference is called for in the order impugned in the present petition. 7. Considering the dispute raised by the petitioners with regard to the identity of the structures designated by numbers 9 and 10 as shown in the plan, the record and proceedings of the Special Civil Suit no. 94/1976 were called by this Court. On perusal of the records of the suit, it is found that a plan is exhibited at Exhibit PW6/A. The said plan also shows on top that it is identified as Exhibit-A. On perusal :7: of the deposition of PW6, it is found that the said plan was produced by Shri Purushottam Dalvi, who was a surveyor and had drawn the plan. While producing the said document, the petitioners did not raise any objection to the said document being exhibited. All these aspects go to show that the said plan was already relied upon by respondent no.1 whilst filing the suit. On perusal of the plaint at paragraph 4 filed by respondent no.1, there is a specific reference that the respondent no.1 would rely upon the plan which is marked Exhibit- A to the plaint. All these factors conclusively establish that the plan at Exhibit PW6/A was the same plan marked as Exhibit- A to the plaint and the decree passed in the suit was to direct the demolition of the structures designated by numbers 9 and 10 in the said plan. On perusal of the said plan, there are two structures shown therein designated by numbers 9 and 10. The contention of Shri S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel that the demolition was with regard to the cow sheds cannot be accepted as on perusal of the reliefs in the plaint, the cow shed is referred to as structure no. 13 and not structures designated by numbers 9 and 10. Hence, I find that the learned Judge has not committed any error in directing the demolition of the structures designated by numbers 9, 10 and 13 as shown in :8: the Exhibit PW6/A. There is no jurisdictional error committed by the learned Judge whilst passing the impugned order. As such, I find no reason to interfere in the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Bicholim. Hence, there is no merit in the above petition which stands accordingly dismissed. F. M. REIS, J at*