1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6138 OF 2010 Sheshrao Manikrao Dhumal ..Petitioner -VERSUS- Devangahabai Madhavrao Shashtri and others. ..Respondents ......... Mr.A.V. Patil holding for Mr.V.D. Gunale, advocate for petitioner. ........ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 14th July, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. The Executing Court sent the decree for effecting partition to the Collector under Section 54 of the Civil Procedure Code. The contention of the petitioner is that the objection regarding the maintainability of decree was not considered by the Executing Court. It is contended that part of right to claim share was given up by the legal representatives of respondent no.2. It is argued that in view of mutual settlement, the decree became inexecutable. It is further argued that opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioner, and therefore, the impugned order is bad-in-law. I find it difficult to countenance the contention of the 2 learned counsel. Basically, no attempt was made to certify the adjustment alleged as required under Order 21 Rule 2 of Civil Procedure Code. Unless such certification is sought and pursued, no such objection can be entertained by the Executing Court. Hence, the impugned order need not be interfered with. Petition is disposed of accordingly. (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE gas/wp6138.10