( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4093 OF 2010 Shri Anil Jijabrao Pawar .. Petitioner Age. 43 years, Occ. Agri., R/o. Main Road, Shendurni, Tq. Jamner, Dist. Jalgaon. Versus Ganpatrao Jagatrao Pawar .. Respondent Age. 52 years, Occ. Agri., R/o. Main Road, Shendurni, Dist. Jamner, Dist. Jalgaon. Mr. Shrimant Mundhe h/f. Mr. S.P. Brahme, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. L.V. Sangeet, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : A.A. SAYED,J. DATED : 15.11.2010 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By the above petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the common order dated 23.03.2010 below Exhs.72 and 80, in Special Darkhast No. 35 of 2003. By that order the ( 2 ) petitioner’s application Exh. 72 came to be rejected and insofar as Exh. 80 (which sought withdrawal of Exh.72) is concerned, it was held that the same does not survive. 3. It is noticed that the petitioner had earlier filed applications at Exhs. 35 and 55, raising objection to execution of the decree. The said decree was a consent decree based on compromise. The respondents on the other hand had filed an application at Exh. 64 seeking police help to execute the decree. The operative part of the common order dated 30.04.2010 below Exh. 35, 55 and 64, passed by the learned Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, reads thus :- “1. Application at Exh.35 and 55 is hereby dismissed. 2. Application at Exh. 64 is hereby allowed. 3. The bailiff of this Court is hereby directed to execute the said decree as per the hand sketch map which is part and parcel of this decree after taking into consideration i.e. measurements of the suit house and hand over the possession of the suit house as per mentioned in hand sketch map to the plaintiff and defendant and report the same to this Court.” 4. Admittedly, the aforesaid order dated 30.04.2009, ( 3 ) has not been challenged and it has attained finality. The petitioner has, thereafter, filed above application at Exh. 72 again raising objection to the execution to the decree as being unexecutable on the ground that there was no second floor to one of the properties. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. In the impugned order the Court in para 6 has observed as follows :- “6/- I find that the order passed below Ex.35 and 55 operate as res judicata u/s 11 of C.P.C. And, therefore, now J.D. has no right remains to raise the objection on similar ground and prolong the matter. Consequently, I find that the application Ex.72 is not tenable and liable to be rejected. Consequently application Ex. 82 does not survive.” 6. It appears that petitioner’s attempt in making repeated applications was only with a view to create obstacles and delay the execution of the decree. 7. Learned Counsel for the respondent further informed the Court that as of today the order dated 30.04.2009 already stands executed and possession has been taken and thereafter the property in question has already been disposed of. ( 4 ) 8. In view of the above, no case for interference is made out. The petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. [A.A. SAYED,J.] snk/2010/NOV10/wp4093.10