1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1092 OF 2009 Sayyed Amir Banesaheb (Died) through LRs Sayyed Munir Sayyed Amir and othes. .. Petitioner Versus Baby Sattarbhai Shaikh and othes. .. Respondents CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 9TH JUNE, 2009. ORAL ORDER :- 1. By way of present petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 19/1/2009, vide which the objection raised to the Execution Proceeding filed by the respondent No.1 came to be rejected. 2. A suit for partition came to be filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The said suit was decreed. Undispujtedly, the present respondent NO.1 was defendant NO.9 in the said suit and the share of the 2 respondent came to be carved out in the decree in the operative part of the judgment and order of the learned 4th Jt. Civil Judge (S.D.), Ahmednagar, as under :- "It is declared that defendant No.9 shall have 2/35th share in the suit properties." 3. Subsequently, the said defendant No.9, i.e. respondent No. 1 herein, filed an execution proceeding for possession of her 2/35th share. The said Execution Petition was objected by the present petitioner . However, vide the impugned order dated 19/1/2009, the application came to be rejected by the learned trial court. Hence, the present petition. 4. Shri Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the defendant NO.1/respondent NO.1 had not contested the said suit. He further submits that there is no decree for grant of separate possession in favour of the defendant No.9. It is, therefore, submitted that the Execution Petition itself were not maintainable. 5. Shri Jadhavar, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the petition. 6. The learned trial court, vide the order impugned, has held that the shares of all the parties to the suit have been declared. It has further been 3 held that in a suit for partition, every party is a plaintiff. It has been further found that since the share of the defendant No.9 was determined as 2/35th share, she could not be deprived of the decree only on technical ground. It was found that the decree could be executed in favour of the respondent No.1 on her paying the requisite court fees in respect of her 2/35th share. No perversity could be found with the approach adopted by the learned trial court. When a decree is passed by the competent civil court, it has to be taken to its logical end. The decree cannot be permitted to be merely a paper decree. In that view of the matter, no interference is warranted in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, writ petition is dismissed. [B.R. GAVAI, J.] grt/wp1092.09