IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 4 OF 2009 SHRI. RAMA MUKUND NAIK AND ANR., ... Petitioners Versus SMT. CHRISTALINA LUIS RODRIGUES AND 5 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Abhay Nachinolkar, Advocate for the Petitioners. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 3rd March, 2009 ORAL ORDER: This Civil Revision is filed by defendant nos. 1 and 2 in Civil Suit No. 70/1979, assailing the order dated 13/01/2009 of the learned Civil Judge Junior Division at Ponda by which defendants nos. 6 and 7 have been directed to comply with the decree dated 2/04/2007. 2. Heard Shri Nachinolkar on behalf of the petitioners/defendants nos. 1 and 2. 3. The plaintiff/Smt. Christalina Luis Rodrigues had filed a suit essentially for removal of the suit structure/gado allegedly constructed by the defendants on or about 15/09/1979. The suit was resisted by the defendants. Defendants nos. 1 & 2 took a plea that the suit structure/gado was a store room meant for storage of agricultural implements as they were the tenants of the suit property. An issue of tenancy appears to have been framed in the light of the claim made by defendants nos. 1 & 2 and the same is pending adjudication by the Mamlatdar. 4. Defendants nos. 6 & 7 who are the daughter and son-in-law, respectively of defendants nos. 1& 2 took a plea that they were mundkars of the plaintiff in respect of the suit structure, but the said plea is negatived by the Mamlatdar and, ultimately, a decree came to be passed against defendants nos. 6 & 7 dated 2/04/2007 by which the said defendants nos. 6 & 7 were directed to remove the suit structure/gado within a period of 60 days and it is this decree which is sought to be executed in the execution proceedings. Admittedly, the said decree dated 2/04/2007 has attained finality, as the same has not been challenged either by defendants nos. 6 & 7, against whom it was directed, nor by defendants nos. 1 & 2 who would be affected by it. Admittedly, the suit structure is used for commercial purpose. 5. Counsel on behalf of the petitioners/defendants nos. 1 & 2 submits that the observation of the learned trial Court that defendants nos. 1 & 2 had not pleaded in their written statement that they were keeping agricultural implements in the said suit structure/gado, is an incorrect statement. It does appear to be so but nothing turns out on that. The learned Counsel further submits that the decree dated 2/04/2007 was not directed against defendants nos. 1 and 2, but, was directed only against defendants nos. 6 & 7. He further submits that if the Decree is executed, it would ousts the defence of the petitioners. 6. Learned Counsel further submits that the claim of tenancy raised by defendants nos. 1 & 2 is yet to be adjudicated by the Mamlatdar and in case the suit structure/gado is ordered to be demolished by defendants nos. 6 & 7, it would amount to prejudging the claim of defendants nos. 1 & 2. This submission cannot be accepted. The defendants nos. 1 & 2 were fully aware of the decree dated 2/04/2007, by which defendants nos. 6 & 7 were directed to remove the suit structure/gado. Defendants nos. 1 & 2 are presumed to have known, that in case the said decree was complied with, the right claimed by them would also be affected, yet, neither defendants no. 6 & 7 nor for that matter defendants nos. 1 & 2 chose to challenge the said decree dated 2/04/2007. The decree has now attained finality and there was no other option before the learned Civil Judge Junior Division not to execute the same. 7. In the light of that, the impugned order cannot be faulted. I find there is no merit in this Civil Revision Application. Therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. N. A. BRITTO, J. NH