1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. L.P.A. No. 575/2010 in WRIT PETITION NO. 1197/2010 (D) (Sau. Manda Manohar Mohod and another .vs. Smt. Geetabai Radheshyam Dube and ors. ) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. K.V. Bhoskar, Advocate for Appellant. .......... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED : DECEMBER 06, 2010 Heard. No contention is raised before us except that the executing Court did not follow the procedure prescribed under Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that T.I.L.R. could not have been given the work. However, it is not the case of the appellant that T.I.L.R. is not authorized to perform the function as directed by the Executing Court. There is presumption as to the regular performance of official acts vide Section 114 (e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. No case is made out. L.P.A. Rejected. JUDGE JUDGE halwai