1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 19 OF 2010 ............................................................. Office Notes,Office memorandum of Coram, appearances,Court's Court's or orders or directions Judge's orders & Registrar's orders. ............................................................. Shri J.P. Kharge for the Petitioners. Shri Shakuntala A. Mudbidri for the Respondent. ­­ CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. DATE : 8TH JANUARY, 2010 P.C.: The Petitioners (who are the Judgment Debtors ) have challenged the orders dated 29th August, 2008 and 21st August, 2009 passed by the Executing Court in execution of the decree for injunction passed in favour of the Respondent. It is not in dispute that the decree for perpetual injunction was passed in favour of the Respondent ( Original Plaintiff ) in Regular Civil Appeal No.142 of 1989. By the said decree, the Petitioners have been restrained by dispossessing the Respondent from the suit land except by recourse to law. It is not in dispute that the decree passed by the District Court has been confirmed. In fact, while dismissing the 2 Second Appeal, this Court has observed that a suit for specific performance has been filed by the Respondent in which the Respondent has been held to be in possession. It is not in dispute that, as of today, the decree which is sought to be executed has attained finality. By the impugned order dated 29th August, 2008, the Executing Court directed the Petitioners not to obstruct possession of the Respondent over the suit property as per the decree under execution and the local Police Station was directed to grant police aid. After hearing the objections raised by the Petitioners, on 21st August, 2009, by the 2nd impugned order, the learned trial Judge allowed the applications made by the Respondents and directed the concerned Police Station to comply with the order dated 29th August, 2008. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that there is serious discrepancy in the description of the suit property in the decree. He submitted that the said objection was raised and notwithstanding the said objection, the impugned orders have been passed. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent pointed out that 3 subsequently the Petitioners have filed a suit for declaration that the decree sought to be executed was illegal and void. The learned counsel pointed out that the application for temporary injunction filed by the Petitioners in the said suit has been rejected. 3. The decree which is sought to be executed has attained finality. So long as the decree which has attained finality is operative, the same has to be implemented. The decree protects the possession of the Respondent which grants liberty to the Petitioners to adopt due process of law to dispossess the Respondent. 4. No case is made out to interfere in writ jurisdiction. Hence, the Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE