MGM mDUR’f m5 CMMMWwQWum-k AT ESLA$PUR 3 w. $§nq£w §§wct3n : Hmt’bw Eam‘i mm Wamamb mwhmukg‘ F $X N5) MMQWW A” want gg Tuisirarw 80m, Aged abaut 55 years‘ 8m wbjmm? Dashrat‘n La: Sam Casi-Samar R/a Ward N010, $hankar Nagap Shiv {Dara Duré (CG) Riemm Regggnaféwf Smt. Sugandhi Bai \iV/o Late Thakux'ram x" Pimmmfmcrm wider R/o Viiiage Paragam, Ba§ragipara, Tamil Dongargarh, Di$trict Rajnamdgann (CG) 2. Phodbasan Bax D/a Late Thakurram R/‘s Through Husoanci Vedram Nimaikar, Yaéunandah Nagaf. Tifra, QrlNo.L—&8 Biiaspuz". Tahsié & Distrlci: Biiaspur (CG) §3emmmdmt 3. Durpati Ba W70 Unkmown wefam§antjs§wgmant mahwr 4 Kamla Kumari D/o Unknown, Minor Thmuah Guardian Mathew Dmpaté 3a}. Beth 0f them ara {€3ia‘em’: 0f Shankar Nagar, Near Durga (Show) Ward No.8; House NOAH}? (Late Thakurrams muse}? Burg Tahsié a Digmct Dui‘g (CG) Ighwari, 82b Makhan La] SGni‘ We Triahu! Chawk‘ Baigapara‘ Durg (CG) Awwai timer $m€im§ W3 rem! with mdw 2ft Rum m3 of ‘£m mm‘g 0f mwg Wacwmiarsz, 1%8. U1 em :— Sm‘; Rake$h TahKur. cowgei for the awehaw’t 8W H, Ex gagrakvah $enim Advesaté wi‘th‘ Shr} ?am<aj Agrawat mumei far rwpomdemts N04, & 2. GWAQL QRYJ‘EEW wa‘saed m1 mm 13‘“ day wf Nigmgt, WW) Heard cm admisgian. (2X T‘ma apperiant/mbjecmr ia aggrvaved bv rejectim or” his Qbjgctmn by the #3” Additiunai District Judge, (FTC)? Durg vide order dated M-O7-QUO8 pagsed ‘m execuiion 0f CM! Suit No.4‘A/2OG6. v— gum‘rw"~°'“’A7””" “ (8') Brief facts are iha‘r,decree for dedaration cf tmE and recovery 0;s pcsraessiorr was waged m favcur cf respgrrderrw No.1 8a 2/p‘rairxt%ffs harem and against the nespondents Nora 4 (3% Sidefendantg aver House NoAOK area ”r608 ET g square fee? Eituate-d at Shankar Naaar} Wad N0.& Tami} & Digirict Durg. In execuibn of demea an objectiom wa3 §ed by ithe appglian‘: hewain that the decree was being executead in refa‘don to HOLzsE NQ4Q7 sinua‘ied in Ward NQ‘O. By ‘the impugned order. the obiemiora was dismissed on {ha gmund that despite chamge in me ward number. the? suit property was Cieariv identmabie. {4} Learned Gounsei fer the appgiiant did mt disputa in this appgai that ward nu'mber of the house in ques’iion Le, House No.40? had mean changrad 3ubsequentiy from Ward No8 to Ward Naioi {5) Learned courrsei Ear the app iiant cantended mat i r Lire decree has moi beeri paaseci in terms of Orcier 2D Ruie 9 CPO Reiiame was piased on Mamar wag}: w. Mamah 53mg}? and Diners, rammed in (19%} iii wipmma mum magma iiiw. Ham/aver; iha cage iaw Ciiad is Ciaariy distinguishabie on far-Sis and cices mt heip the apneiiarit. (5) Afier hearing iearrieci couneei fer the appeiien’cs i am of the caneidered epinicm that this appeai i-iae no meritln View of the admissiori by the ieamed coxineei for the appeiiaht ‘ié‘he subjec? matter of the decree being cteariy identifiabiei the rejection of objection by the Executing Court is weii merited and does net caii for any interference a (7) lo the resui‘i, the appeai is diemieeeda Sd/— Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge