IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 634 OF 2009 SHRI. VITORINO MENDONCA ... Petitioner Versus SHRI. LAWRIE DE SOUZA (DECEASED) THROUGH LR'S ... Respondent Mr. J. J. Mulgaonkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Coram:- R. M. SAVANT, J. Date:- 4th December, 2009 P.C. Leave to amend, so as to annex the last page of the impugned Order dated 25.03.2009. 2. This Petition takes exception to two Orders, first being the Order dated 25.03.2009, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, by which Order, the Execution Application filed by the Decree Holders, i.e. the Respondents herein, came to be granted, and the second being the Order dated 28.07.2009 by which, the Appeal filed by the Petitioners challenging the Order dated 25.03.2009 came to be rejected. By the said Order dated 25.03.2009, the Bailiff was directed to give peaceful possession of the suit house no. 513 situated in the suit property surveyed under Survey no. 311/11, in the Village of Vagator, Anjuna. 3. The Petitioner is the Judgment Debtor in respect of a Decree in a suit filed by the Respondents herein being Regular Civil Suit No. 273 of 1983. In the said suit, an issue as to whether the Petitioner is a Mundkar was framed and the said issue was answered in the light of the Order dated 06.09.1999 of this Court in Writ Petition no. 236/1999. The Decree passed in the said suit has become final and binding as the said proceedings were not pursued further by the Petitioner. 4. The execution of the Decree is now sought to be objected to on the ground that till such time as the Petitioner's application under Section 8-A of the Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975, (Act, for short), is decided, the execution proceedings should be stayed. It is sought to be contended on behalf of the Petitioner by the learned Counsel that the proceedings under Section 29-A are summary proceedings and stand on a different footing than the proceedings under Section 8-A of the said Act which are for declaration as a Mundkar. The entry, if any, effected pursuant to the proceedings under Section 29-A, has only a presumptive value. Reliance is placed on the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 1995 (1) G.L.T. 154 in the matter of Smt. Gulabi Sangtu Devidas vs. Smt. Prema G. Gaonkar, in support of the said submission. 5. It would be pertinent to note here that the application for registration made by the Petitioner before the Mamlatdar, was rejected by the Mamlatdar after considering the evidence produced by the Petitioner. Thereafter, the matter was carried in Appeal to the Deputy Collector by the Petitioner, which Appeal was dismissed and, thereafter, the matter was carried to the Administrative Tribunal in Revision, which was also dismissed against which a Writ Petition was filed being no. 236/1999, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by Order dated 06.09.1999 and the findings recorded by the Authorities below were confirmed by this Court. In my view, therefore, even though the proceedings were under Section 29-A of the Act, the evidence produced by the Petitioner having been considered by the Courts below and the Authorities having recorded a finding of fact that the Petitioner is not a Mundkar, which has been affirmed by this Court, I do not find any merit in the submission of the Petitioner. The application of the Petitioner appears to be a last ditch attempt to stall the execution of the Decree. 6. In that view of the matter, no case for interference in the writ jurisdiction is made out. The above Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. R. M. SAVANT, J. arp/*