( 1 ) wp6834.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6834 OF 2011 Bankat Wamanrao Karad .. Petitioner Versus Ashok Baburao Surwase & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. H.K. Mundhe, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr. Vivek Bhavthankar, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 15.09.2011 P.C. :- 1. Heard. The writ petition can be disposed of at the stage of admission. The writ petition is challenging the order dated 21st March, 2011, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sonpeth, Dist. Parbhani, in R.D. No. 19 of 2008. The petitioner was a decree holder who initiated this Regular Darkhast. This Regular Darkhast was initiated pursuant to the decree passed in R.C.S. No. 220 of 2001. The suit was filed for specific performance and permanent injunction. The petitioner stated in the plaint that pursuant to the agreement for sale, he was put in possession. He alleged that the J.D./defendant did not execute the sale-deed as required by the agreement. The J.D./defendant did not appear ( 2 ) wp6834.11 before the Court and the suit was decreed partly directing the J.D./defendant to execute the sale-deed as required by the agreement after accepting an amount of Rs.65,000/- from the petitioner. Somehow, the relief for perpetual injunction was not granted. Thereafter, in the execution proceeding, the petitioner sought not only specific performance of the contract as directed by the decree but even possession of the suit property. This time he came with a case that he was not in possession. The learned Judge of the execution Court refused to grant him relief of delivery of possession because the decree did not give such relief to the petitioner. The question as to whether the petitioner is entitled to possession would not arise in the execution proceeding because if the petitioner is suggesting that he was dispossessed during the pendency of the suit or after it, it would amount to fresh cause of action and such cause of action cannot be taken into cognizance while exercising powers under Order 21 of C.P.C. The petitioner may take legal advise for filing separate proceeding for possession. 2. The writ petition stands dismissed. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] snk/2011/SEP11/wp6834.11