1 48. WP 5199.23.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5199 OF 2023 Kisan Nattuji Harne (dead) Thru. LR’s Sunil Kishanrao Harne Vs. Ramesh Yashwant Sadafale and ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order Mr. R. D. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. V. S. Giramkar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATE : 24.09.2025. . The petitioner has suffered a decree for possession in Regular Civil Appeal No.145 of 2000. The respondents are the decree holders. The respondents had filed a suit for possession, being Regular Civil Suit No. 307 of 1998, which was dismissed by the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Amravati vide judgment and decree dated 29.04.2000. The appeal preferred by respondents, being Regular Civil Appeal No.145 of 2000 came to be allowed vide judgment and decree dated 10.09.2003. They have filed execution proceeding vide Regular Darkhast No.35 of 2022 for execution of the said decree passed by the learned Appellate Court. 2. The petitioner filed an objection in the said Darkhast proceeding vide Exh. 31, inter alia contending that the suit property comprised of one room only, whereas the decree holders were trying to take 2025:BHC-NAG:90 2 48. WP 5199.23.odt possession of four rooms, out of which, three rooms and bathroom were constructed by him after dismissal of suit and during the pendency of appeal for his own use. The learned Advocate contends that the said three rooms constructed by him are not covered by the decree. He further contends that the decree was only with respect to one room. 3. The learned executing Court has taken into consideration the description of the suit property as mentioned in the plaint which is as under:- “The suit bearing no. R.C.S. No. 307.1998 was filed for the possession of house. In the said suit the plaintiff/D.H. has given the description of the suit property as - situated at Belpura, Dist. Amravati having old H No. 21/490 and new H no. 362 in ward no. 38, Nazul Sheet No. 46-A, Plot No. 66/A east west partitioned of north side having room nksu ik[kh dosywph iwosZl ,d njoktk o if’pesl ,d njoktk] ykach n-m- 18 QqV o #anh 14 QqV 9 bap ;kps ekxs vax.k 16 QwV #anhps] mRrjsl 3 QwV 3 bap #anhph lkeV] bounded as- Towards East – Government road, Towards West – Datir’s house, Towards North – Sakaram’s house, Towards South – Plaintiff’s house” 3 48. WP 5199.23.odt 4. It is not in dispute that other three rooms are standing on this open land. The contention of learned Advocate, Mr. Dharmadhikari is that the land is not part of the suit property and that the suit property is comprises of one constructed room only. 5. Perusal of the description of the suit property in the plaint will demonstrate that the contention raised by the learned Advocate is contrary to the description given therein. Throughout the proceedings, there was no dispute between the parties as regards the description of the suit property. It is the contention of the learned Advocate for the judgment debtors that the three rooms have been constructed by the judgment debtors and that these three rooms are not part of the suit property. However, in fairness, it is not disputed that the said three rooms are constructed on the land which is referred as suit property in the plaint. It is the case of the petitioners that the construction is made after filing of the suit. 6. In view of the above, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Executing Court has rightly rejected the objection. No jurisdictional error is pointed out in the impugned order. 7. Writ Petition No.5199 of 2023, therefore, stands rejected. (ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.) Tanmay