1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.4473 OF 2009 ... Ashok Ramdas Wagh and others ...PETITIONER V E R S U S Babulal Ganpat Sakhla and others. ..RESPONDENTS. Shri.Shailesh P. Brahme, Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J : DATE : 15 th JULY, 2009 PER COURT :- 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 22.04.2009 vide which an application filed by the present petitioner for permission to lead evidence came to be rejected. 2- The respondent had filed a suit for mandatory injunction. Said suit was decreed. The respondents had filed a execution proceedings vide Regular Darkhast No.06/2008 vide which the execution of the decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.213/2001 was sought. 3- In the said Regular Darkhast, an application came to be filed by the present petitioner for permission to lead necessary evidence on the ground that decree was obtained by committing fraud on the Court. Said application is rejected. Hence present petition. 4- Shri Brahme, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the learned trial court has grossly erred in rejecting the 2 application. He submits that fraud vitiates everything and as well as the solemnity of the proceeding. He further submits that to enable the petitioner to prove the case of fraud, the learned trial court ought to have permitted the petitioner to lead evidence. 5- It is settled law that executing court cannot go beyond decree. Admittedly, the petitioner has not challenged decree in RCS No.213/2001 by preferring any appeal. As such, the learned trial court has rightly held that such an application was not tenable in law. 6- In that view of the matter, no perversity or infirmity could be found with the approach adopted by the learned trial court so as to warrant interference in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence rejected. ( B. R. GAVAI, J. ) ..... aaa/wp4473.09