(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 8643 OF 2009 Digambar s/o. Vithalrao Mete. .. Petitioner. versus 1. Rajaram s/o. Sambhaji Mete, 2. Bhagwan s/o. Sambhaji Mete, 3. Ram s/o. Sambhaji Mete. .. Respondents. .......................... Mr. S.V. Jadhav Patil, Advocate, for the petitioner. .......................... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 18TH DECEMBER 2009. COURT'S ORDER : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 7th December 2009, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambajogai, below Exhibit 150 in Regular Darkhast No. 5/2002. By the said order, the application filed by the respondents plaintiffs, for issuance of possession warrant, came to be allowed, (2) however, subject to the condition that the decree holder deposits Rs. 42,000/- towards the cost of the standing crops in the suit land. 2. The learned Judge of the executing court, while rejecting the application, has found that though a decree in favour of the decree holder has been confirmed up to the Apex Court and though various attempts have been made to put the decree holder in possession of the suit land, on one pretext or the other, the execution of the decree is protracted. However, in order to safeguard the interest of the petitioner, the learned Judge of the executing court has found that the judgment debtor should deposit an amount of Rs. 42,000/- which he has estimated to be approximate cost of the standing crops in the suit land. 3. No perversity could be found with the approach adopted by the learned Judge of the executing court, so as to warrant interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp8643