1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8672 OF 2010 Shivdas s/o. Shamrao Agale (Deceased) and others ....Petitioners. Versus Ramdas s/o. Bhanudas Bhagat, R/o. Waghala, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed and others. ....Respondents. Mr.A.G. Dalal h/f. Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. V.G. Sakolkar, Advocate for respondent No. 1. CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 7th March, 2011. COURT'S ORDER : 1. On 28th February 2011 matter was adjourned for two weeks in view of judgment of the reported in 2006 (1) SCC 625 in the case of Ram Bachan Rai Vs. Ram Udar Rai then relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner urging that controversy is placed before the larger bench by the Apex Court itself. 2. Before passing orders, this Court inquired both the counsel namely Shri. Salunke and Shri. Sakolkar about the view of Hon'ble Apex 2 Court in the case of Chandi Prasad Vs. Jagdish Prasad reported in (2004) 8 SCC 724. Both the counsel on that day could not assist this Court. Before signing this Court verified the position and found that judgment in the matter of Chandi Prasad (supra) is the judgment of Hon'ble three Judges of Hon'ble Apex Court concluding the controversy. 3. The perusal of the judgment in the case of Ram Bachan Rai (supra) shows that controversy was actually different. The question there was, whether the date on which decree is signed, it becomes enforceable or then the said period of limitation is to be counted from the date of judgment. The controversy has arisen because of the use of word "enforceable". Here, the question was of application of doctrine of Merger and the Trial Court has correctly appreciated the controversy. The Executing Court has rightly found proceedings to be within limitation. Application of mind in the light of judgment in the case of Chandi Prasad (supra), there is no merit in the petition. Petition is accordingly rejected. No costs. [ B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.] ssc/wp8672.10