- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.82/2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1344/2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5038/2009 Abajirao Balwant Patil and Balwant Laxman Patil through L.Rs. ...Appellants.. Versus Chindha Fakira Bhandare. ...Respondent... ..... Shri V.J. Dixit, Senior Counsel with Shri A.N. Nagargoje, Advocate for appellants. Shri Hamnantrao T. Joshi, Advocate for respondent. ..... CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE: 27.08.2009 PER COURT: Heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellants. This letters patent appeal takes exception to the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 30.4.2009 in Writ Petition No.1344/2009. Filing of - 2 - the aforesaid writ petition before the learned Single Judge, at the behest of the present appellants, was necessitated on account of an order passed by the trial Court rejecting the application filed by the present appellants for measurement of the suit land. The executing Court, while rejecting the application, had held that the map, which was drawn by the City Surveyor, had been duly proved in the suit and the said finding had been affirmed upto the appellate Court and also by this Court in Second Appeal. Shri V.J. Dixit, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, has urged before us that since the boundaries are not mentioned in the decree, the decree is incapable of execution as the suit land i.e. the encroached portion of the land between the two survey numbers can not be identified. The decree has been referred to the Court Commissioner i.e. Taluka Inspector of Land Records for execution. The Court Commissioner has not expressed any difficulty or has not expressed his inability for executing the decree on account of the fact that the suit land can not be identified. In any event, the execution is pending in a suit, which was filed in the year 1988. The learned Single Judge of this Court has examined the matter on merits and has found that no perversity could be noticed with the approach adopted by the executing Court to warrant any interference in the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge as well as the executing Court and on their perusal, we do not find that any case is made out by the appellants for our interference in this letters patent appeal. Consequently, this letters patent appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. Amount of Rs.15,000/- deposited by the appellants pursuant to the order of this Court dated 8.5.2009 be refunded back to the appellants. - 3 - In view of dismissal of letters patent appeal, Civil Application No. 5038/2009 does not survive and disposed of as such. (A.V. Potdar, J.) (P.V. Hardas, J.) ndk/c278094