*1* IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7317/2009 Peter Ghabru Lem @ Lemos. ..Petitioner -VERSUS- Smt.Rozalin Anion Lem and others. ..Respondents ............... Mr.Peter Ghabru Lem @ Lemos, Petitioner present in person. Mr.Sudhir Prabhu, Advocate for the Respondents Nos.1 to 4. ............... CORAM: A.P. DESHPANDE, J. Dated 07th December, 2009. PC:- 1 The Respondents instituted a suit for partition and separate possession. The suit came to be decreed and both the parties are granted half share in the immovable property which is residential house. In execution proceedings filed by the Petitioner/Judgment Debtor, the Court Commissioner was appointed and the Court Commissioner has directed division of property by drawing a straight line from the middle of property and accordingly, the bailiff has carried out demarcation by laying straight line. Thereafter, the Respondents/Decree Holder moved an application dated 06.04.2009 requesting the Executing Court to direct the Commissioner to construct a partition wall and for that purpose the Decree Holder showed his readiness and willingness to contribute 50% of the costs and urged the learned Executing Court to direct *2* the Petitioner/Judgment Debtor to deposit his share of cost in the Court. 2 Perusal of the order passed by the Executing Court reveals that the Commissioner who happens to be Architect has suggested partition of house and accordingly, an order came to be passed on 04.08.2008 where-under northern half portion of the suit property was allotted to the present Petitioner whereas southern half portion has been allotted to the share of Respondents and accordingly, possession warrant came to be issued and the bailiff has handed over respective shares to the Petitioner and the Respondents. However, while effecting partition and handing over shares, the bailiff has marked a central line in the middle portion of house and effected partition. In that view of the matter, the present application came to be filed by the Respondents with a view to have partition wall being erected and the said application came to be opposed by the Petitioner. However, the objection was rejected and the application was allowed vide order dated 09.06.2009. 3 Perused the impugned order. The same does not call for any interference as the same does not suffer any illegality. In the result, there being no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed. (A.P. Deshpande, J)