1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 81 OF 2010 Bhagwat s/o Jyotiram Jamdar .. APPELLANT VERSUS Savita w/o Balaji Garad .. RESPONDENT Mr. S.S. Thombre, Advocate for the appellant. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 28 th January, 2010 PER COURT : 1 Heard. 2 Decree passed by the trial court in Regular Civil Suit no. 381/1992 has been confirmed by the first appellate court and the challenged raised to the decree passed by the first appellate court in second appeal presented to the High Court has also been turned down. In Regular Darkhast seeking execution of the decree, the decree holder tendered objection application and resisted execution on the ground that the area as well as location of the property does not confirm to the description and boundaries given by the 2 trial court while passing the decree. In substance, the contention of the judgment debtor is that the boundaries mentioned in the sale-deed and plaint are not identical. It is also further contended that the description of the property given by the Commissioner in his report also does not confirm to the description given by the trial court while passing the decree. According to the judgment debtor, the decree in its present form is not executable. Trial court turned down the objection and the appeal presented by the judgment debtor raising exception to the order passed by the trial court has also been turned down by the first appellate court. 3 I have perused the order passed by both the courts below. It is to be noted that similar objection was raised by the judgment debtor by presenting applications at exh. 19 and 57 in Regular Darkhast nos. 12/2001. The applications tendered by the judgment debtor raising similar objection were turned down earlier by the executing court in view of the order passed on 21-3-2002. The judgment debtor presented writ petition challenging the order of rejection of the objection applications tendered in pending darkhast by the trial court in Writ Petition no. 3327/2004. However, this court after considering the contentions raised by the judgment debtor has dismissed the writ petition upholding the order passed by the executing 3 court. In view of the decision rendered in Writ Petition no. 3327/2004 confirming the earlier order passed by the executing court on 21-3-2002 thereby turning down the identical objection raised by the judgment debtor, the instant second appeal raising identical issues also cannot be entertained. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. Appeal therefore stands dismissed summarily. 4 In view of dismissal of appeal, pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/sa81.10.odt