IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1480 OF 2009 Shri.Anil Mohanrao Kolekar & Anr. ...Petitioners V/s. Smt.Ambubai Mahadeo Chapale, since deceased through her L.R. Balasaheb Mahadeo Chapale & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.Milind Deshmukh for Petitioners. Mr.Amit B.Borkar for Respondents. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. FEBRUARY 17, 2009. FEBRUARY 17, 2009. FEBRUARY 17, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. According to the Petitioners, appointment of Court Commissioner to ascertain the factum as to possession of the Petitioners was either in relation to G.P.No. 1827 or 1828 was imperative. I find no substance in this argument. 3. The Court below has rightly noted that the : 2 : issue regarding description of the suit property was not only agitated before the Trial Court but later on also before the First Appellate Court as well as this Court in Second Appeal. All the Courts have answered the issue regarding description of the suit property against the Petitioners. The Executing Court is bound by the said opinion recorded during the trial. The Trial Court has noted the changes that were brought about as originally the suit property was described as G.P. No.1827 which was later on made to 1451 and now C.T.S.No. 1131. That is a finding of fact which has not been disturbed either by the First Appellate Court or this Court in Second Appeal. It is too late in the day for the Petitioners to argue that they are not in possession of suit property but some other Gat Number. The request for appointment of Court Commissioner or to dismiss the execution application, therefore, is devoid of merits. Hence, dismissed. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.