1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1115 OF 2009. Jagannath Ramjathan Mishra ..vs.. Farari Baba Kuti Ellichpur. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram: S.R.DONGAONKAR,J . Dated : 21st March 2009. 1. Heard Shri Jaipurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has challenged the the order passed by 3rd Jt.Civil Judge (JD), Achalpur in Reg.Ex.No.45/2007 dated 14/1/2009. The impugned order reads thus - “Heard and perused the record. The J.D. Has raised objection to this execution petition on the ground that the decree is not executable due to lack of identification of suit site. On going through operative order of the order and judgment of Hon'ble district Court in RCA No.45/1998 2 it appears that, Hon'ble district Court has pleased to pass an order to effect that J.D. Should deliver possession of suit site as described in para no.1 of plaint. Thus identification given by the plaintiff/D.H. in plaint is sufficient for identification of suit site. Therefore, in my opinion, this decree can not be called as unexecutable. Hence, application is found to be devoid of merit and accordingly is rejected. 3. According to the learned judge, the identification given by the plaintiff/D.H. in plaint is sufficient for identification of the suit site. Therefore, according to the learned judge, this decree can not be said to be unexecutable. As such, the objection of the petitioner under Section 47 of the of the Code of Civil Procedure is not sustainable. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that suit site was not properly described and identified. It is also submitted in para no.2 of the application under Section 47 of the C.P.C. Nazul Plot No.51 and 52 sheet No.21-C were shown to have been received by the Baba 3 Mahant Rameshwardas while Rameshrandas has alleged to have received both the plots under a will dt.7/9/1977 executed by Rameshwardas and after dismissal of the suit both the plots have been sold by Ramsharandas to one Deepaksingh, Vinod and Krishnakumar in 2003 as per the Nazul record. According to the learned counsel, this aspect is not considered by the learned judge. Therefore, impugned order is not correct. 4. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel. 5. It appears that the view taken by the learned trial judge is not incorrect. It is pointed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that one suit No.317 of 2007 is still pending in respect of the suit property. 6. Executing court has to consider that aspect and after hearing the parties take proper view in accordance with law in the matter. With these observations the writ petition is dismissed. 7. All contentions as regards subject matter in Civil suit No.317/07 are kept open. JUDGE. chute 4