IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 351 OF 2008 MR. VISHWAS YESHWANT VAIGANKAR AND ANR., ... Petitioners Versus MRS. HELENA MASCARENHAS E SOUZA TICLO AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. Vivek Rodrigues, Advocate for the Petitioners. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 26th June, 2008 P.C.:- Heard Mr. Vivek Rodrigues, learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioners. Challenge in this petition is to the Order dated 7-2-2007 in Execution Proceedings No.51/2004/B. The suit against the present Petitioners was decreed by Judgment dated 30-6-2004 against which an appeal is pending. It appears that the said suit was filed on the allegation that the Defendants i.e. the present Petitioners were trespassers. It appears that the Defendants/Petitioners had taken the plea that they were the tenants but that plea was not accepted by the trial Court and against that there is an appeal pending. In fact, the learned trial Court held that the Defendants had failed to prove in what capacity they were occupying the suit premises. It appears that the appellate Court had granted conditional stay which could not be complied with by the Petitioners. In Execution Proceedings the Petitioners took the said plea again namely that they were tenants and therefore the Court had no jurisdiction to execute the Decree. This plea has been rejected by the learned Executing Court stating that the J.Ds were trying to reopen the issues which have been already decided. In case the plea of the Petitioners was wrongly decided, the matter can be agitated in the appeal filed. Such a plea which stands negatived at present could not be reopened in Execution Proceedings. The learned trial Court was right in rejecting such a plea raised in an application for execution. Only in case the Petitioners had succeeded in proving that they were tenants, then only, such a plea would outst the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, for their eviction. This is not a fit case for interference in writ jurisdiction. Petition dismissed. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.