1 wp-9374-11.sxw mmj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9374 OF 2011 Hanmant Khashaba Shirke & Ors. ..Petitioners Vs. Arvind Sitaram Pawar ..Respondent Mr. R.D.Suryawanshi for the Petitioners CORAM : R M SAVANT, J. DATE : 12th December 2011 P.C. 1 The above Petition takes exception to the Order dated 29-8-2011 passed by the Learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Medha. The said Order has been passed in the execution proceedings relating to the execution of the decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.48 of 2002. The said Order discloses that the decree holder is allowed to fence the suit property in question excluding the area of construction along with the area of temporary roof in respect of which Regular Civil Suit No.35 of 2002 is pending for adjudication under supervision of the bailiff on payment of necessary charges to the decree holder, he is also permitted to ask for police help. The said direction as contained in clause (1) and (2) of the impugned order have been issued as the executing Court has prima facie reached to a conclusion that there was a willful disobedience of the decree by the Judgment Debtor of the decree passed against him. However, clause (3) of the impugned order discloses that as yet no adjudication has taken place in terms of Order 21 Rule 32 (1) and (3) of the Civil Procedure 2 wp-9374-11.sxw Code. Hence, in that sense, the Petition is filed against the said Order dated 29-8-2011 is premature. 2 The learned Counsel for the Petitioners on the basis of the instruction he has received states that the impugned Order has been kept in abeyance by the executing Court by passing an order to that effect. In my view, therefore, by reserving the right of the Petitioners to challenge the Order that will be finally passed under Order 21 Rule 32(1) & (3) of the Civil Procedure code the above Writ Petition is disposed of. [R.M.SAVANT, J]