1 WP No.4389/11 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4389 of 2011 Manual Pereira ... Petitioner versus Peter John Harman D’Souza, deceased thru LRs Julie D’Souza and others ... Respondents ... Mr.SM.Oak i/b Sagar Joshi for the petitioner. Mr.K.K.Malpathak for respondent nos.1(A) to 1(E). CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 25th July 2011 P.C. 1. Heard. 2. A decree for possession of the house property bearing Uttam Gram Panchayat No.254 and ofan open plot of land bearing Survey No.293, hissa no.6, adjoining the house was passed against the petitioner in Special Civil Suit no.106 of 1986 by the Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Thane on 26 November 1992. The respondents 2 WP No.4389/11 decree holders filed an execution petition bearing Special Darkhast No.41 of 1998 for execution of the decree. The petitioner filed an application in the execution petition praying that the decree had become unexecutable in view of the fact that house no.254 had collapsed by natural forces and therefore, the decree cannot be executed. He also relied upon a certificate issued by Mira Bhayander Municipal Corporation that out of house nos.253 and 254, only house no.253 was in existence and that has been numbered as property no.623 by the Mira Bhayender Municipal Corporation. Relying on the said certificate, he prayed that the court should pass an order that the decree was not executable. After considering the evidence adduced by the parties, the executing court rejected the application by its order dated 21 March 2011. That order is impugned in this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the property in respect of which the decree has been passed is in existence and petitioner himself is in possession thereof. It is only an attempt to delay the execution of a decree. He further submits that if the bailiff goes for execution of the decree, he would be able to identify the property with reference to the description given in the decree and execute it. The submission of the respondent is meritorious. If it is the contention of the petitioner that the house which forms the subject matter of the decree does not exist having collapsed by natural forces, the bailiff would not be able to execute the decree for possession of the non-existent house and would so report it to the court. The Court, however, cannot refuse to execute the decree merely on the assertion of the petitioner (judgment debtor) that the 3 WP No.4389/11 decree has become unexecutable because of the collapse of the house by natural forces especially when the respondent contends that the house exists and petitioner is in possession thereof. I see no error in the view taken by the executing court. Petition is rejected summarily. (D.G.KARNIK, J)