1 wp-8448.11.sxw lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8448 OF 2011 Prabhakar Ramchandra Desai and ors. : Petitioners versus Kamalakant Rajaram Parab & ors. : Respondents. Mr. N V Walawalkar, Senior Counsel, i/by Ms.Shakuntala Mudbidri for the Petitioners. Mr. A S Khandeparkar for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Vishal Patil for Respondent Nos. 13 to 15. CORAM : R M SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 09th December 2011 P.C. 1 Leave to amend so as to annexe typed copy of Exhibit C­I granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2 The above Petition arises out of the order dated 13/09/2011 passed by the Executing Court i.e. the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vengurla by which order the Application­Exhibit 87 filed by the Petitioners herein in Regular Darkhast No.05/2007 came to be rejected. 3 The said Application was filed by the Petitioners seeking stay of the demarcation of the road which was to be carried out pursuant to the order dated 16/5/2011 passed on Exhibit 25. The operative part of the said order contains seven Clauses. The difficulty, according to the Petitioners, arises in 2 wp-8448.11.sxw view of Clause (3) of the said order which directs the Road to be aligned in a particular manner. This, according to learned Senior Counsel appearing for the the Petitioners, is contrary to the alignment shown in the map annexed to the Decree dated 29/1/2003 which decree has been put into execution. 4 The bone of contention, as can be seen, is a triangular portion to the South­West corner of Gat No.656 adjoining Adeli to Zarap road. Though earlier, a stand was taken by the Respondents herein that the land marking of the said road was not in the said Gat No.656, the learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.13 to 15, in the course of hearing of the above Petition for confirmation of the interim relief, has made a statement that the said Respondents have no objection to the alignment of the road shown in the North­West corner of the said Gat No.656 forming a triangle. The alignment of the road in terms of the decree passed by the trial Court has been annexed to the affidavit in reply filed by the Respondent Nos.13 to 15 in the above Petition. In view of the said statement by the learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.13 to 15, the said triangular portion has been marked in the copy of the map annexed to the affidavit in reply filed by the said Respondents in this Court and which is a part of record of the present Petition. Alongside the said triangular portion, the learned advocates have signed in acknowledgment of the above. The learned counsel for the parties are ad­idem that the map annexed to the affidavit in reply is the same map which annexed to the decree in question. The said statement of the learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 wp-8448.11.sxw 13 to 15 that they have no objection to the alignment of the road shown in the map annexed to the affidavit and that they have already handed over the triangular portion and that they accept that the triangular portion, which is shown in Red in the map annexed to the affidavit in reply filed in this Court, is the part of the road, is accepted as an undertaking to this Court. In view thereof, the direction as contained in Clause (3) of the order dated 16/5/2011 passed on Exhibit 25 need not be complied with in view of the said statement and acceptance of the alignment by the Respondent Nos.13 to 15. The bailiff to carry out the direction contained in Clause (2) having regard to the map which is annexed to the affidavit in reply filed by the Respondent Nos.13 to 15 including Red Triangular portion. As stated herein above, there is now no necessity for compliance of Clause (3) of the said order. In so far as Clauses 4 to 7 are concerned, they are only consequential to the implementation of clause (3) which has become redundant in view of the order passed in respect of Clause 3 herein above. 6 The Petition is therefore disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The statements of the learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.13 to 15 is accepted as an undertaking to this Court. Office to supply certified copy of affidavit in reply dated 8/12/2011 and the copy of the map Exhibit A annexed thereto. [R.M.SAVANT, J]