1 dgm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3434 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court’s or Judge’s of Coram, appearances, Court’s Orders orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. ------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.V.B.Tapkir for the petitioners. Mr.Sadashiv G. Deshmukh for the respondent. CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED : 11.11.2008 P.C. A notice was issued to settle the matter. There is no possibility of settlement. The present petitioner has challenged the impugned order on 2.5.2008 passed by the Civil Judge, J.D. Islampur below exhibit 92 in Regular Darkhast No.99/1999. This court by order dated 11.01.2008 observed with regard to property in question as under: "5.After this matter was argued for some time, Mr.Shinde appearing for respondent Nos. 1(b), 1(c), and 1(d) makes a statement that these respondents shall withdraw all their objections to the 2 decree passed in favour of the petitioner decree holder in Reg. Civil Suit No.45 of 1984 without prejudice to their rights to initiate appropriate proceedings with regard to their right, title and interest in the immovable property bearing Survey No.330A. Since all objections and applications upon which the executing Court passed the subject orders are withdrawn, nothing survives, in so far as, those objections are concerned. Therefore, the orders dated 5/9/2006 and 5/4/2007 are quashed and set aside by consent of parties. Regular Darkhast No.99 of 1999 shall now proceed in accordance with law. This however will not prejudice the respondents 1(b) to 1(d) from initiating such proceedings as are permissible in law for claiming right, title and interest in respect of the property Survey No.330A. However, Mr.Shinde appearing for these respondents, states that, fresh proceedings would be initiated within a period of two weeks from today. Needless to state, that if they are not so initiated, then the respondents would not be entitled to raise any objections to the decree in question or raise the dispute of the identity of the property covered by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Petition allowed. Needless to clarify that the liberty to initiate proceedings, does not mean that the respondents concerned can apply in the darkhast being Reg. Darkhast No.99 of 1999. The independent proceedings shall be substantive and not in these execution proceedings. All contention of both sides in that behalf are kept open. " Having once observed and as the issue is concluded, the 3 petitioner cannot now reagitate the same. The order is clear which has dealt with the property bearing survey no.330-A which is the subject matter of the suit as well as Regular Darkhast No.99/1999. Therefore, the application so granted including a police protection need no interference. The petition is accordingly dismissed. [ANOOP [ANOOP [ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.] V. MOHTA,J.] V. MOHTA,J.]