*1* IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6127/2009 Ashok Nivrutti Jadhav. ..Petitioner -VERSUS- Laxman Shankar Bharati (decd.) and others. ..Respondents ............... Mr.Uday Warunjikar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.Mohan N. Dhamal, Advocate for the Respondents Nos.1 to 4. ............... CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. Dated 05th November, 2009. PC:- 1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by consent of the parties. 2 The Respondent No.1/Plaintiff obtained the decree against the Defendants and had put the decree for execution by filing the Darkhast proceedings. Under the decree, the Defendants have been directed to remove all construction made in the suit property and handover peaceful possession of the suit property to the Respondent No.1/Plaintiff within a stipulated time frame. The Petitioner moved an application before the Executing Court for his impleadment as a party in the execution proceedings. It is relevant to note that the decree was not being executed and the present Petitioner has not obstructed in execution. The said application was *2* opposed by the decree holder/Plaintiff by contending that the application itself is misconceived and not maintainable. It also appears that the Petitioner did file a substantive suit in the year 2008 and prayed for grant of injunction apprehending dispossession in the execution proceedings. The Trial Court having rejected the application seeking impleadment, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3 The learned counsel for the Respondents Nos.1 to 4 submits that the decree in question is partly executed and it is also so observed in the order dated 17th November, 2008 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division. 4 Perused the impugned order. There is no legal right in the present Petitioner to seek impleadment in the execution proceedings. The only legal right which is recognized would be right to obstruct and in that eventuality the appropriate proceedings will be resorted to. In that view of the matter, I do not see any infirmity in the impugned order. 5 Writ Petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. 6 Needless to mention that the interim order if any stands vacated. (A.P. Deshpande, J)