1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 63 OF 2007 (Sardar Begum Abdul Rafique and another .v. Suresh Uttamsa Goje and others) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri C.A. Joshi, Advocate for the applicants. Shri J.J. Chandurkar, Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 6. Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for the respondent No.7. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. 4TH FEBRUARY, 2008. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. By way of present application, the applicants challenge the order dated 16th July, 2007 thereby rejecting the objection raised by the present applicants to the execution of the decree. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for decree of possession on the basis of title and claiming that the defendants had encroached upon the said field. The suit came to be decreed. For execution of decree, Regular Darkhast No.25/1998 came to be filed by the Decree Holder. In the said proceedings, an objection under Section 47 was raised on the ground that unless a precept is sent to the Collector under Section 54 of the CPC, the decree cannot be executed. The same is 2 rejected. Hence, the present petition. Shri C.A. Joshi, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that the learned executing Court has grossly erred in not taking into consideration the decree was not executable inasmuch as a precept has not sent to the Collector for partition of the suit property. S/Shri J.J. Chandurkar and S.P. Bhandarkar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submit that the applicants on one pretext or the other, are trying to avoid the execution of decree and, therefore, no interference is warranted in the impugned order. Perusal of the decree as well as the impugned order would reveal that the suit is for possession on the basis of the title and on the claim that the defendants have encroached upon the suit field. The learned executing Court has come to a finding that Section 54 of CPC would not be applicable inasmuch the suit is not for partition and possession. Perusal of impugned order so also the decree would reveal that the learned trial Court has correctly held that since the suit is not for partition and separate possession and is only for possession on the basis of the title, the provisions of Section 54 of CPC would not be applicable. 3 No irregularity can be noticed in the jurisdiction exercised by the learned trial Court so as to warrant interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence Civil Revision Application is rejected. JUDGE *rrg.