1 wp 3555.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3555 OF 2011 Rangnath Apparao Muley .. Petitioner Versus Gyandeo Narhari Waghmare & ors. .. Respondents Shri S. R. Choukidar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. Y. Mahajan, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 8. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 20TH JUNE, 2011. PER COURT : . The petitioner has filed an execution proceeding for execution of the decree. The petitioner also filed an application for police aid on the ground that the respondents/judgment debtors have obstructed his possession on 15.06.2010, while he was sowing his field. The said application came to be rejected. Aggrieved thereby the decree holder has filed the present petition. 2. Shri Chowkidar, the learned counsel for the petitioner 2 wp 3555.11 submits that the Court has dealt with the application in a casual manner and has not considered the avernments made by the petitioner and it has been rejected on the ground that affidavit of other persons i. e. neighbourers has not been filed to substantiate the obstruction. According to the learned counsel, there was no impediment for the Court to grant the said application. 3. Shri Mahajan, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that avernments made in the application were denied. The petitioner has not substantiated the said avernments and alleged obstruction was not proved. In such circumstances, the application for police aid has been rightly rejected. 4. The petitioner has only moved the application on solitary ground that on 15.06.2010 the respondents obstructed him in carrying out the agricultural operations. The petitioner has not led any evidence to substantiate the said avernments. Unless the said avernments are proved, the police aid cannot be given to a decree holder as a matter of course. Even the petitioner has not led any evidence. In such circumstances, no error has been committed by the Trial Judge in rejecting the said application. 3 wp 3555.11 5. In case the respondents cause obstruction to the petitioner in future, the petitioner will be at liberty to move such application before the executing Court, which application the executing Court would consider on its own merits. The writ petition is dismissed, however, with no costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/June 11