1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10462 OF 2010 Hanifabi w/o. Ramzan Gajraji & Ors. ....Petitioners. Versus Sugrabi w/o. Abdul Khuddus & Ors. ....Respondents. Mr. D.P. Deshpande, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.D. Ghayal, Advocate for respondent No. 1. CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 24th February, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard Advocate Shri. Deshpande for petitioners and Advocate Shri. S.D. Ghayal for contesting respondent No. 1. 2. Advocate Shri. Ghayal points out that he is the defendant in the suit for partition, who has applied for taking further steps to see that preliminary decree is finalized and executed. In view of the statement of Shri. Ghayal service upon other respondents is dispensed with. 3. Perused the judgment in the case of Kisan Bhikaji Dalvi (deceased), through L.R. Vs. Krishnabai Maruti Dalvi reported in 2000 (2) BCJ 105 and also the judgment in the case of Annasaheb Rajaram Nagane and Anr. Vs. Rajaram Maruti Nagane and Ors. reported in 2001 (3) Mh.L.J. 53. Both judgments point out that the application to Trial 2 Court to forward preliminary decree under section 54 cannot be treated as execution proceeding and it is a step for preparation of final decree. 4. Shri. Ghayal has no objection, if his application is similarly treated. He, however, urges that the final decree proceeding should be expedited and decree should be executed at the earliest. 5. In view of this position, I do not see any prejudice caused to present petitioner by treating the application for execution as filed by respondent No. 1 as an application for taking appropriate steps to finalize preliminary decree. 6. The Trial Court shall proceed further in accordance with law and take appropriate steps within a period of two months from today. 7. With these directions present writ petition is disposed of. No costs. [ B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.] ssc/wp10462.10