(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Letters Patent Appeal No. ............. of 2009 (Stamp No. 9350 of 2009) (In Writ Petition No. 802 of 2009) Mukund s/o. Gopal Palse (Burud), Died through L.Rs. : 1. Smt. Salubai w/o. Mukund Palse (Burud), 2. Dashrath s/o. Mukund Palse (Burud), 3. Bhagwan s/o. Mukund Palse (Burud), 4. Bhagwat s/o. Mukund Palse (Burud). .. Appellants. versus Kashinath s/o. Tukaram Palse (Burud). .. Respondent. .......................... Mr. V. Jain, Advocate, instructed by Mr. S.M. Vibhute, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. S.B. Talekar, Advocate, for the respondent. .......................... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & R.K. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 20TH JULY 2009. COURT'S ORDER : 1. Appeal is taken up for admission. Office to register it as Letters Patent Appeal. (2) 2. By way of present appeal, the appellants have challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this court, dated 25th February 2009, in Writ Petition No. 802 of 2009, thereby dismissing the petition filed by the present petitioner. 3. Mr. V. Jain, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, submits that the learned Single Judge has failed to take into consideration, that in the decree itself, the court commissioner who was directed to be appointed, was to be an architect. He submits that, however, the executing court has appointed an Engineer of the Public Works Department, who has valued the price of the house at Rs. 1,19,196/-. He submits that the value of the house property is not less than Rs. 10,00,000/-. 4. Mr. S.B. Talekar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, submits that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the petition and, as such, the present appeal is without substance. 5. While dismissing the petition, this court has taken into consideration the fact that the decree, which is put into execution, has been passed in the year 1981. As such, a period of almost 28 years has lapsed from the date on which the decree has been passed. It has further been found that for finding out valuation of the property, the Engineer of the Public Works Department was a fit person. 6. No error could be found with the view taken by the learned Single Judge, so as to warrant interference. (3) 7. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. ( R.K. DESHPANDE ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/lpast9350