1 33.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6719 OF 2025 SHANTABAI SITARAM PHIRKE DECEASED THR LRS AND OTHERS VERSUS VASUDEO ANANDA PATIL AND OTHERS ... Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Imale Ramesh Ramdas Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 : Mr. Dattatraya Rambhau Markad … CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 24th AUGUST, 2026 PER COURT : 1. The Petitioners are challenging the order dated 09.05.2025, passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Yawal, District Jalgaon, in Regular Darkhast no. 58/2001, in which the objection raised by the Petitioners in respect of the description of the property mentioned in the execution petition which was wrongly described, has been rejected and warrant under Order XXI Rule 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure, along with police protection is issued for handing over the possession of the house property no. 1059-A. 2. It is submitted by the Petitioners that while passing decree in Regular Civil Suit no. 38/1987, in respect of open land abutting house no. 1059, of village Nhavi, Taluka Yawal, District Jalgaon, decree in respect 2 33.odt of the open plot mentions as house no. 1059 of village Nhavi. However, in the execution proceedings, the decree holder has mentioned house number as 1059 A of Village Nhavi, which belongs to the Petitioners and the execution in respect of the same is under process. 3. It is submitted that although he has raised the objection about wrong description of the property, the executing Court has refused to entertain the objection and rejected his Application. From the documents placed on record, it is evident that in the decree in Regular Civil Suit no. 38/1978, the description of property is stated to be open plot of Gram Panchayat house no. 1059 of village Nhavi, while in the Regular Darkhast no. 58/2001, the description of the property in clause no. 10 mentions the Gram Panchayat house no. 1059 A and the land abutting to it. This position is also not disputed by the learned Advocate for the Respondents. However, he opposes the order passed in favour of the Petitioners. 4. Considering that the decree is passed in respect of house no. 1059 of village Nhavi, the decree is required to be executed in respect of the same property no other property can be attached in the execution proceedings. Hence, the order impugned passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, is set aside and the Plaintiff directed to take steps to correct the description of the property, upon making such correction 3 33.odt further order shall be passed by executing Court i.e. the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Yawal, District Jalgoan. 5. The appropriate correction shall be carried out within a period of two weeks, after which appropriate order shall be passed by the executing Court, as permissible under law. 6. With the aforementioned directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. ( MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. ) SPC