( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 866 OF 1995 Ashwinkumar s/o. Nanalal Mehta .. Applicant Age. 37 years, Occ. Trader, R/o. Bombay, at present Jalna. Versus 1) M/s. Bhurumal Phulchand Patni .. Respondents & Company, a registered partnership firm, New Mondha, Jalna. 2) M/s. Ambika Pulse Mills, a registered partnership firm, MIDC Area, Jalna, through Jayesh Nanalal Mehta, aged 35 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Jalna, partner of M/s. Ambika Pulse, Jalna. 3) Jayesh Nanalal Mehta, Age. 35 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Parvati Apartment, Mustagad, Jalna. 4) Dilip Nanalal Mehta, Age 32 years, Occ. Business, R/o. 25, M.G. Complex, Sector No. 8, Washi, New Bombay. R/o. C-45, Room No. 14, Sector No. 14, M.G. Complex, Washi, New Bombay. ( 2 ) 5) Khushalchand Permanand Ramani, Age. 55 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Tulsi Nivas, Near Mission Hospital, Jalna. 6) Taramati Mansukhlal Mehta, Age. 56 years, Occ. Household, R/o. Near Amili Masjid, Opp. Dr. Kale. Jalna. Shri A.H. Kapadia, Advocate for the applicant. Shri S.S. Bora, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 30.09.2009 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. This Civil Revision Application is filed by Ashwinkumar Mehta, who has taken objection to the execution of Special Darkhast No. 30 of 1993, more particularly to the proclamation issued under Order 21 rule 66 of the C.P.C. issued in Special Civil Suit No. 22 of 1990 on 10.07.1995. 2. Briefly stated it is case of present revision applicant that house plate No. 1-1-286/CTS-8657 situated at Rupa Tekdi, Jalna, is house allotted to him in partition and therefore it cannot be attached for decree to be executed ( 3 ) against M/s. Ambika Pulse Mills (Respondent No.2) of which respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are partners. The learned advocate for the revision applicant submitted that both respondent Nos.3 and 4 are dead and therefore respondent Nos. 2 partnership does not survive. It is not disputed that originally, house property belonging to Nanalal Nemichand Mehta, who is father of present revision applicant and respondent Nos. 3 and 4. There were also two other brothers. The document produced at page 14 of this revision application was relied upon to show that there was partition. Admittedly, it was a document on stamp of Rs. 5/-. It is not registered deed and the opening words clearly shows that it was a partition deed. It gives details of partition. The learned advocate for the applicant said that earlier there was oral partition and this is only memorandum of partition deed. I differ from said statement. The document is in-fact partition deed and it cannot be acted upon unless it is registered. In this view of the matter, there is no evidence regarding partition. Property card produced though showing name of only Ashwinkumar, present revision applicant and his brother Mukeshmukar. Mutation appears to have been made on the basis of partition dated 03.04.1987. At that time it was ( 4 ) represented that document was a partition deed. 3. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the property is exclusively belonging to present revision applicant. The learned advocate has also pointed out to me that earlier application under Order 21 Rule 26 of the C.P.C. was filed, copy of which is at Exh. "C". That application was held to be not maintainable and it was dismissed on 26.12.1994. Another application filed in Special Darkhast No. 30 of 1993 at Exh. "D" with the revision petition. Said application was said to be under Order 21 Rule 58 and 59 r/w Section 151 of the C.P.C. for termination of attachment. The application came to be dismissed on 02.09.1995 on the ground that it was miscellaneous proceeding regarding judicial enquiry and same do not form part of the proceedings in a suit or Darkhast. 4. I am not satisfied with the order dated 02.09.1995. At the same time, it appears that present revision applicant has some share in the property attached and if he has any objection to the proclamation issued, he is entitled to point out his share in the suit property. So, that proclamation ( 5 ) could be amended, if necessary. With these observations the the revision applicant is allowed to appear before the executing Court and make fresh application stating his exact share in the property proposed to be sold and thereafter the executing Court shall consider said objection and shall issue fresh proclamation according to law. 5. The Civil Revision Application stands disposed of accordingly. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/SEP09/cra866.95