IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 342 OF 2010 STATE OF GOA, THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND ANR., ... Petitioners Versus DOMINGOS M. L. MERGULHAO (SINCE DEC.) THROUGH LR'S ... Respondent Mr. G. Shirodkar, Government Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. D. Pangam, Advocate for Respondent nos. 4 to 6 and 7 to 11. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 26th October, 2010 P.C. Heard Mr. Shirodkar, learned Government Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Pangam, learned Counsel for respondents nos. 4 to 6 and 7 to 11. 2. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged order dated 07-01-2010, passed by the District Judge-1, Panaji in execution application no. 15/08 directing the petitioners to pay an amount of Rs. 2,80,777.52 as on 16-04-2008 together with interest thereo at the rate of 15% per annum within one month. 3. The petitioners preferred first appeal no. 91/92 challenging the award passed by the District Court enhancing the compensation in favour of the respondents under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The said appeal was disposed of in the year 1996. This Court partly allowed the appeal by judgment and order dated 03-08-1996. 4. Thereafter, an application was filed by the petitioner for refund of amount of Rs. 2,86,146/- alongwith accrued interest. The said application was allowed and the petitioners were paid the said amount with interest. The balance amount was paid to the respondent, upon application filed by the respondent. 5. In 2008, the respondent filed execution proceeding no. 15/08 claiming an amount of Rs. 2,86,777.52 alongwith interest thereon at the rate of 15% per annum. The said application was opposed by the petitioner/judgment debtor. By impugned order the District Court rejected the objection and directed the petitioner to pay the said amount and hence this writ petition has been filed challenging the said order. 6. Mr. Pangam, challenged the writ petition on the grounds that the petitioners have remedy under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code and therefore the writ petition is not maintainable. 7. Mr. Shirodkar, submitted that the only remedy available to the petitioner is to file writ petition challenging the impugned order. 8. Perusal of record discloses that, before the executing Court it was the case of the petitioner/judgment debtor that in view of the earlier application filed by the respondent for refund of Rs. 1,26,000/- with interest thereon which was allowed by this Court, the execution application filed was not maintainable. 9. According to Mr. Shirodkar, the judgment delivered in the case of Dr. Ramesh Mulgaonkar V/S Special Land Acquisition Officer dated 05-02-2007 in miscellaneous civil application no. 593/06 is not attractive, since it would not be applicable to the pending proceedings and the only remedy would be to file a writ petition challenging the impugned order. 10. Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the record, I am of the considered opinion that objection taken by Mr. Pangam deserves to be allowed. If the impugned order is set aside, the execution proceedings would come to an end. Hence in terms of proviso to Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code the revision is maintainable against the impugned order. 11. In my considered opinion, the appropriate remedy for the petitioner would be to challenge the impuged order by filling revision application under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code. It is also well settled that in case the party has a statutory remedy, this Court would not normally exercise writ jurisdiction except in exceptional case. 12. In view of the above, writ petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. Consequently, the same is dismissed. A. P. LAVANDE, J. EV