1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6139 OF 2008 Narendra Singh Tura .. Petitioner versus Neena Nareshkumar Khatri & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.M.P.Vashi for the petitioner. Mr.D.B.Sawant for respondent Nos.1 to 6. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 5th October 2009. P.C: . I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties on the earlier date. The petitioner is the original defendant judgment debtor. A decree for possession passed against him has attained finality. In execution application a notice purporting to be obstructionist notice was taken out by the petitioner defendant raising a contention that the decree sought to be executed does not relate to the premises in his possession. One of the original plaintiffs had taken out obstructionist notice for removal of obstruction raised by the petitioner-defendant and five others. By a common order the notice taken out by the petitioner was discharged and the notice taken out by the decree holder was made absolute. A revision application was preferred by the petitioner against the said order which has been dismissed by the appellate bench of the Court of Small Causes. 2 2. In the suit filed by the respondents the suit property has been described in paragraph 5 thereof as flat No.1 on the ground floor of building No.194-A, Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg, Mumbai. In paragraph 1 of the plaint and in the prayer clause, the number of the building is mentioned as 194. It must be stated here that in the decree passed, the description of the suit premises is flat No.1 in building No.194A of Shahid Bhagat Singh Road. An application was made by the respondents pointing out that in the decree the suit premises has been described as flat No.1 on the ground floor of 194-A instead of 194. In the said application it was contended that the suit related to flat No.1 on the ground floor of property bearing No.194. The said application was made for correcting the decree. The said application has been rejected by the trial Court and admittedly the said order has not been challenged by the respondents. 3. In the application for execution filed by the respondents, the suit premises was described as flat No.1 in building No.194. The possession warrant was issued and subsequently police help was also granted. In the application preferred by the petitioner (original defendant) before the executing Court, an objection was raised to the executability of the decree. It was contended that in the drawn up decree the suit premises have been described as flat No.1 in building No.194 and it is not stated as to whether the suit premises are on the ground floor or the first floor. It was contended that the warrant was sought to be executed against a flat on the ground floor 3 bearing No.194-A. The trial Court rejected the contention raised by the petitioner and made the obstructionist notice taken out by the respondents absolute by passing following order: “The plaintiffs can certainly execute the decree in respect of the suit premises i.e flat No.1 on the ground floor situated at Shahid Bhagat Singh Co-operative Society Ltd., Andheri Kurla Road, J.B.Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 059 irrespective of the fact that the number of the suit premises is shown as 194A in the decree.” A revision application filed against the said order by the petitioner has been dismissed by the appellate bench of the Court of Small Causes 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that an application was made by the respondents for correcting the number of the building in the decree and the said application has been rejected on 22nd September 2005. He pointed out that the respondents did not challenge the said order. He submitted that without challenging the said order the respondents cannot be permitted to execute a decree as per the impugned order dated 31st October 2007 which runs contrary to the order on application made by the respondents for correcting the decree. He submitted that after having failed to get the decree corrected, the respondents cannot obtain possession warrant. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions. As stated earlier, in paragraph 1 of the plaint the respondents have stated that their predecessor 4 was the owner and landlord in respect of building No.194. In paragraph 5 of the plaint the suit premises has been described as flat No.1 on the ground floor of building No.194A. The prayer for possession in the suit is in respect of flat No.1 in building No.194. As far as description of the suit premises is concerned, in written statement there is no grievance made. In the examination-in-chief filed by one of the respondents in the suit, she came out with a case that suit flat No.1 was in a building No.194A. There is no cross-examination made by the petitioner based on the identity or description of the property. In her cross-examination the witness examined by the respondents has stated that the suit building is building No.194A and there was one flat on each floor of the suit building and flat No.1 was the subject matter of the decree. 6. The petitioner filed affidavit-in-lieu of examination-in-chief in which he described his address as flat No.1, ground floor, 194A. As stated earlier, the issue of discrepancy in building number was not raised by the petitioner in the suit. It is obvious from the notes of evidence that both parties knew the description of suit property which is flat No.1. Admittedly there is no relationship of tenant and landlords between the parties in respect of any other premises in the said property. Thus, description in the decree was sufficient to identify the suit property. In any case, the objection raised by the petitioner has been dealt with by both the Courts below. Thus, both the parties were fully aware of the suit property in respect of which the decree 5 has been passed. There is no dispute as regards identity of flat No.1. Therefore the decree for possession will have to be executed as prayed. Only on the basis of rejection of application under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the petitioner cannot contend that decree has been rendered inexecutable. If the property subject matter of the decree can be identified, the execution cannot be frustrated on the basis of such hyper- technical objections raised by the petitioner. This is not a fit case for interference in extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is accordingly rejected. The decree for possession shall not be executed for a period of four weeks from today. (A.S.OKA,J)