1 WP No.3663/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3663 OF 2011 NANDRAM GENU NIKALJE AND ORS VERSUS RAJARAM @ NATHA SUDAMA NIKLJE ... Advocate for Petitioners : Mr.H.D. Deshmukh AGP for Respondent State: Mr.KJ Ghute-Patil Advocate for Respondent : Mr.Avinash S Deshmukh ***** CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 28th NOVEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : 1) Heard learned Counsel for the writ petitioner. He feels aggrieved by order dated 24.12.2010 recorded by learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Newasa, directing issuance of Precept under Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure to Collector, Ahmednagar for effecting partition of the suit land pursuant to the judgment and decree recorded in RCS No. 280/1992 decided on 19.4.2008. He also feels aggrieved by the notices issued by the Collector/Subordinates dated 19.4.2011. He has another grievance, in the Misc. Application moved before the learned District Judge, seeking condonation of delay, interim relief was sought which has been refused. 2 WP No.3663/2011 2) These composite orders are felt by the petitioner requiring interference by this Court. 3) The issuance of the Precept under Section 54 of CPC is a ministerial act, does not require any notice to be issued to the judgment debtor, consequently, non-issuance of notice will not change colour and complexion. The issuance of notice by the revenue authorities was in tune with the directions given by the Court while seeking execution of partition decree. Such act of the revenue officer, does not call for interference. The learned District Judge did not entertain stay without hearing Respondent No.2 therein( original plaintiff) and rightly so. That will not be a phenomena to be criticized to the conduct of the learned District Judge. It is for the writ petitioner to get his application, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, decided and then only the learned District Judge would be able to pass appropriate orders. 4) Considering all the events, I do not see any error in the aforesaid three orders questioned by the petitioner. However, it is clarified that the learned Collector or the revenue authority, shall not effectively act upon the decree which was sent for partition, up to 3 WP No.3663/2011 31st January, 2012. The learned AGP will inform the Circle Inspector, Newasa, the revenue officer, within a week from today in this regard. 5) With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed. Authenticated copy of this order be provided to learned AGP to act upon. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/