1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR LPA NO. 451 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2489 OF 2009 (Dwarkadas Shankarlal Baheti vs. Damayanti Nandkishor Parati) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & F.M. REIS, JJ. OCTOBER 14, 2009. Heard Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for the appellant. In execution, the decree holder contended that under the guise of removing the shed already in existence and directed to be removed, encroachment has been made on the other part of the property by erecting a wire fencing and shed. He, therefore, moved an application at Exh. 27 for taking appropriate action against the judgment debtor. He also moved one more application at Exh. 37 for appointing TILR to demarcate the property and to hand over the alleged encroached portion to him. The Executing Court has accordingly allowed Exh. 37 by keeping Exh. 27 pending. Writ Petition was filed before the learned Single Judge with contention that vide Exh. 37, the effort was to collect evidence. The learned Single Judge has found that the Executing Court has been trying to ascertain the property to be delivered to the decree 2 holder. The same argument is repeated by Shri Deshpande, learned counsel, who contended that no developments in Court were suppressed and the contention that wire fencing or new shed is erected in suit property, raises a disputed question. He contends that the said disputed question cannot be resolved through TILR. The judgment and decree in favour of the respondent has been maintained right up to the Hon’ble Apex Court and thereafter the execution has begun. In execution, time was sought by the appellant – judgment debtor to remove his shed and accordingly that time was given. After expiry of that time, applications at Exh. 27 and Exh. 37 have been moved. In view of all these facts, the Executing Court is proceeding further with execution of decree after taking note of the contention of judgment debtor that he has removed the shed and counter of decree holder that it has been re-erected on the part of suit property itself. The learned Single Judge has rightly appreciated the controversy. No case is made out warranting interference. Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE *GS..