1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8326 OF 2009 Mohiddin Baba Kuravale .. Petitioner versus Ibrahim Jainuddin Kuravale .. Respondent Mr.S.H.Kazi for the petitioner. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 5th October 2009. P.C: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The petitioner is the defendant-judgment debtor. A decree for removal of encroachment has been passed against the petitioner. The operative part of the decree reads thus: “2. The defendant should hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the encroached area admeasuring 192 sq.mtrs (shown by letter `C’ in the map exh.50) on land bearing S.No.23, H.No.5+6+7/1A situated at village Shiral, Tal.Chiplun, Dist.Ratnagiri, to the plaintiff within two months from the date of order. 3. The prayers as to compensation and mesne profits are rejected. 4. The map exh.50 shall form part of the decree.” 2. By the impugned order, the executing Court has directed execution of the decree. The concerned police station has been directed to provide police 2 aid to the decree-holder while executing the decree. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited my attention to the report of the bailiff filed in the execution proceedings. He pointed out that in the report it is stated that the Taluka Inspector of Land Records has raised an objection that the map at Exhibit 50 referred to in the decree is not prepared by his office. The bailiff has recorded that the Taluka Inspector of Land Records is contending that survey will have to be carried out before the decree is executed. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submitted that in view of the said objection, the trial Court could not have passed the impugned order. 4. As of today, the decree for removal of encroachment has attained finality. The decree records that the encroached area has been shown in map at Exhibit 50. It is obvious that demarcation has to be made as per the said map and decree has to be executed so long as it stands. Therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned order. 5. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner intends to prefer an appeal against the decree and therefore execution be stayed for a reasonable period. 6. Hence, I pass the following order: : O R D E R : (a) The writ petition is rejected. 3 (b) In view of the request made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, decree for removal of encroachment shall not be executed for a period of four weeks from today. (A.S.OKA,J)