Judgment : Rule. With the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The challenge in the above petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 22.6.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vengurla. The said order in terms of Clause 4 thereof mandates the Bailiff to follow a particular course of action in identifying the 10 ft. wide road starting from Adeli Zarap Road leading to Kamalivir Village. The above petition, in a way, exemplifies the manner in which an order passed by this Court is sought to be over reached by the Respondent Nos.13 to 15. The Respondent Nos.13 to 15 herein are the proponents of the application Exhibit 122 which has been filed by them in which the impugned order has been passed. The other respondents are the decree holders and out of them the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are represented before this Court. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner herein that the service on the other respondents is not necessitated in view of the fact that they are the beneficiaries under the decree in question. 3. The instant order has been passed in the execution proceedings which have been filed by the decree-holders in a suit which was filed in a representative capacity under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code. The suit in question was filed by the villagers of village Adeli for the declaration of their right of easement over the 10 ft. wide road leading from Adeli Zarap Road to Kamalivir Village. Respondent Nos.13 to 15 were the main contesting defendants. The said suit was decreed by the trial Court by judgment and order dated 29.01.2003. In so far as the Respondent Nos.13 to 15 are concerned, they did not carry the matter higher and therefore the decree has become final and binding. The decree-holders put the decree in execution by filing Regular Darkhast No.5 of 2007. In the said Regular Darkhast proceedings, the Bailiff came to be appointed for demarcation of the said 10 ft wide road in question which was carried out by the Bailiff, Rajendra Jaysing Rajput on 31.10.2007. The decree-holders put the decree in execution by filing Regular Darkhast No.5 of 2007. In the said Regular Darkhast proceedings, the Bailiff came to be appointed for demarcation of the said 10 ft wide road in question which was carried out by the Bailiff, Rajendra Jaysing Rajput on 31.10.2007. In the panchanama recorded on the said day, the Bailiff has recorded that the said road was identified by the decree-holders and that on such identification, it was found that there were cement and barbed wire fencing poles in the alignment, which were removed by the Bailiff. The Bailiff has submitted a report that the Respondent Nos. 13 to 15 herein refused to accept the notice of his visit to the site. Hence, in so far as the execution proceedings are concerned, the road in question was already identified on 31st October, 2007 by the Bailiff appointed by the Court. 4. It appears that thereafter an application Exh.25 came to be filed by the decree-holders in view of the obstruction which was created by the Defendants 11 to 13 i.e. Respondents 13 to 15 herein. The obstruction was on the ground that the road does not pass through the land bearing No.656 and especially the triangular portion owned by the Defendant Nos.11 to 13. The said application was considered by the Executing Court and by order dated 16th May, 2011 the said application was disposed of by issuing the directions as contained in Clauses 1 to 7 of the said order. In so far as the present petition is concerned, Clause 3 of the said order is material. The same reads as follows (English Translation):- “Clause 3: Deputy Superintendent of Land Records is directed that he should define the 10' wide road in dispute as shown in the map at Ex.5 annexed to the decree in Reg. Civil Suit No.47 of 2001. On the Land Gat No.656 at Village Mauje Bhandarwada, TalukaVengurla, by measuring the Land on site and at 10 ft. on the East of the point at which North and West boundaries meet.” 5. In so far as the other clauses are concerned, a reading of the said Clauses disclose that they were consequential to the said Clause 3. 6. Aggrieved by the said order dated 16.5.2011, the petitioners herein who own lands in the said village Adeli had filed Writ Petition No.8448 of 2011. In so far as the other clauses are concerned, a reading of the said Clauses disclose that they were consequential to the said Clause 3. 6. Aggrieved by the said order dated 16.5.2011, the petitioners herein who own lands in the said village Adeli had filed Writ Petition No.8448 of 2011. It is pertinent to note that in the said writ petition Defendant Nos.11 to 13 i.e. the Respondent Nos.13 to 15 herein, through their learned counsel Shri Patil who is also appearing in the present petition, made a statement that the said respondents have no objection to the alignment of the road shown in the North West corner of Gat No.656 forming triangular portion and a further statement was made that they have already handed over the said triangular portion and that they accept that the triangular portion has been marked in the copy of the map annexed to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the said Respondents in this Court and which is part of the record of the present petition. The said statement was therefore accepted as an undertaking to this Court. Clause 4 of the said order dated 9th December, 2011 disposing of the said Writ Petition No.8448 of 2011 is relevant and is reproduced herein under:- “The bone of contention, as can be seen, is a triangular portion to the South-West corner of Gat No.656 adjoining Adeli to Zarap road. Though earlier, a stand was taken by the Respondents herein that the land marking of the said road was not in the said Gat No.656, the learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.13 to 15, in the course of hearing of the above Petition for confirmation of the interim relief, has made a statement that the said Respondents have no objection to the alignment of the road shown in the North-West corner of the said Gat No.656 forming a triangle. The alignment of the road in terms of the decree passed by the trial Court has been annexed to the affidavit in reply filed by the Respondent Nos.13 to 15 in the above Petition. In view of the said statement by the learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.13 to 15, the said triangular portion has been marked in the copy of the map annexed to the affidavit in reply filed by the said Respondents in this Court and which is a part of record of the present Petition. In view of the said statement by the learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.13 to 15, the said triangular portion has been marked in the copy of the map annexed to the affidavit in reply filed by the said Respondents in this Court and which is a part of record of the present Petition. Alongside the said triangular portion, the learned advocates have signed in acknowledgment of the above. The learned counsel for the parties are ad-idem that the map annexed to the affidavit in reply is the same map which annexed to the decree in question. The said statement of the learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.13 to 15 that they have no objection to the alignment of the road shown in the map annexed to the affidavit and that they have already handed over the triangular portion and that they accept that the triangular portion, which is shown in Red in the map annexed to the affidavit in reply filed in this Court, is the part of the road, is accepted as an undertaking to this Court. In view thereof, the direction as contained in Clause (3) of the order dated 16/5/2011 passed on Exhibit 25 need not be complied with in view of the said statement and acceptance of the alignment by the Respondent Nos.13 to 15. The bailiff to carry out the direction contained in Clause (2) having regard to the map which is annexed to the affidavit in reply filed by the Respondent Nos.13 to 15 including Red Triangular portion. As stated herein above, there is now no necessity for compliance of Clause (3) of the said order. In so far as Clauses 4 to 7 are concerned, they are only consequential to the implementation of Clause (3) which has become redundant in view of the order passed in respect of Clause 3 herein above.” 7. In view of the aforesaid clause 4, this Court directed that there was no necessity for compliance of clause 3 of the order dated 16.5.2011 passed by the trial Court for demarcating the 10 ft. wide road on the site in question. Since Clauses 4 to 7 were consequential, this Court observed that they need not be complied with. 8. In view of the aforesaid clause 4, this Court directed that there was no necessity for compliance of clause 3 of the order dated 16.5.2011 passed by the trial Court for demarcating the 10 ft. wide road on the site in question. Since Clauses 4 to 7 were consequential, this Court observed that they need not be complied with. 8. In view of the said order dated 9th December, 2011 passed in the said Writ Petition No.8448 of 2011, the matter in respect of the demarcation of the road was laid at rest. However, this was not to be as Defendant Nos.11 to 13 i.e. Respondent Nos.13 to 15, very ingeniously in the guise of complying with the directions as contained in the order dated 9th December, 2011 as contained in Clause 4 thereof, filed application Exh.122. It appears that the decree-holders also filed an application that the Court itself may visit the site in question. Another application was filed by one of the decree-holders that he has prepared a CD of the road that may be seen by the Court. An application was also filed by the present petitioner to compare the map prepared by the Court Commissioner with the map prepared on the directions of the Deputy Director of Land Records which was prepared after a complete survey of the area in question. Another application was filed for cancellation of the map prepared by the Court Commissioner in view of the map prepared under the directions of the Deputy Director. The matter had reached this Court as though there was a direction that all the applications should be heard together and disposed of. The trial court had disposed of only Exh.122. The said order passed by the trial court deciding Exh.122 only was set aside by this Court by the order dated 10th May, 2012 passed in Writ Petition No. 444 of 2012 and this Court directed the trial court to consider all the applications together. The trial court thereafter proceeded to hear all the 5 applications. By the impugned order, the trial Court has rejected the other 4 applications. However, in so far as the application Exh.122 filed by the Defendant Nos.11 to 13 is concerned, the same was allowed and the directions as contained in Clause 4 of the said order which is the main substantiative direction, was issued. By the impugned order, the trial Court has rejected the other 4 applications. However, in so far as the application Exh.122 filed by the Defendant Nos.11 to 13 is concerned, the same was allowed and the directions as contained in Clause 4 of the said order which is the main substantiative direction, was issued. The said direction was for demarcation of the road in question on site by identifying the said road. The said clause 4 (English Translation) is reproduced hereinunder:- “Clause 4. “Deputy Superintendent, Land Records, Vengurla is directed that the land Gat No.656 may be measured on site and the triangular portion shown in red colour in Vayavya corner (North West Corner) in the map annexed to the affidavit-in-reply by Respondent Nos.13 to 15 (judgment debtors in present Darkhast) in Writ Petition No. 8448 of 2011 in the High Court and demarcate it by putting mortar/ chalk to the bailiff of this Court.” 9. The Executing Court has observed that the decree-holders themselves are not sure of the alignment of the road and are unnecessarily making a hue and cry about the alignment passing through the triangular portion. The trial court held that the demarcation carried out by the Bailiff on 31.10.2007 could not be considered in view of the fact that the said execution of the order passed in the execution proceedings by the Bailiff was ex-parte and was therefore in violation of the principles of natural justice. As indicated above, it is the said order which is impugned in the present petition. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The principal contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the trial Court i.e. Executing Court could not have issued the directions as contained in Clause 4 of the impugned order. In the teeth of the order dated 9th December, 2011 where in Clause 4 thereof the statement and the undertaking of the said Defendant Nos.11 to 13 has been recorded. The learned Senior Counsel would contend that in fact the filing of the application at Exh.122 borders on contempt in the teeth of the statement and undertaking which has been recorded in the said order dated 9th December, 2011 passed in the earlier petition. The learned Senior Counsel would contend that in fact the filing of the application at Exh.122 borders on contempt in the teeth of the statement and undertaking which has been recorded in the said order dated 9th December, 2011 passed in the earlier petition. The learned Senior Counsel would contend that the Executing Court has issued similar directions which were issued on an earlier occasion notwithstanding the order dated 9th December, 2011. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that allowing the said application Exh.122 and issuing the directions as contained in Clause 4 thereof amounts to over reaching the orders passed by this Court. The learned Senior Counsel would contend that there is no dispute now about the demarcation and identification of the alignment of the road in question. In view of the panchanama of the execution carried out on the 31st October, 2007 and now in view of the order dated 9th December, 2011, Clause 4 thereof, the learned counsel would contend that it was not open for the Defendant Nos.11 to 13 to take the stand that they have taken in Exh.122 and also in the affidavit-in-reply filed in the present petition in para 12 thereof in the light of the order dated 9th December, 2011 wherein the statement and the undertaking of the said defendants has been recorded. 11. Per contra, it is submitted by Shri Patil that the defendants have never given up their stand which they have taken in the earlier round of litigation in the Writ Petition No.8448 of 2011 that the alignment of the 10 ft. road wide does not pass through Gat No.656 and especially in the triangular portion thereof. The learned counsel would contend that it is in the said context that the averments have been made in paragraph 12 of the affidavit-in-reply. 12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have bestowed my anxious consideration to the rival contentions. As the facts disclose that on the application Exh.25 filed by the decree-holders, the directions as contained in Clause 3 were issued as appearing in the order dated 16.05.2011. As indicated hereinabove, it is in the writ petition filed challenging the order dated 16.05.2011 being Writ Petition No.8448 of 2011, that the statement and the undertaking of the Defendant Nos.11 to 13 was recorded which has been recorded in Clause 4 of the order reproduced hereinabove. As indicated hereinabove, it is in the writ petition filed challenging the order dated 16.05.2011 being Writ Petition No.8448 of 2011, that the statement and the undertaking of the Defendant Nos.11 to 13 was recorded which has been recorded in Clause 4 of the order reproduced hereinabove. Therefore, in so far as the alignment of 10 ft. wide road was concerned, in view of Clause 4 of the said order dated 9th December, 2011, there could be no further dispute about the alignment of the road as the main opponents as it were i.e. the Defendant Nos.11 to 13 had accepted the fact that the alignment was passing through Gat No.656 and that they have already handed over the triangular portion. The matter was therefore laid at rest, in so far as the alignment of the road was concerned. However, very ingeniously the application Exh.122 was filed, purportedly on the ground that the same has been filed for compliance of Clause 4 of the said order dated 9th December, 2011. This, in my view, was not a bonafide approach of the Defendant Nos.11 to 13 and was filed just to over reach the order dated 9th December, 2011. The Executing Court, without appreciating the order dated 9th December, 2011, especially having regard to Clause 4 thereof, in a manner has mechanically issued the directions as contained in Clause 4 of the impugned order. The said Clause 4, as reproduced hereinabove, as can be seen, is virtually identical to Clause 3 of the earlier order dated 16th May, 2011. The only difference that can be seen is that the english word “North West corner” is replaced by “Vayavya” i.e. North West in Marathi. As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, the said order has the effect of over reaching the order dated 9th December, 2011 passed by this Court. There is also merit in the submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that in the light of the panchanama dated 31st October, 2007 wherein the obstruction of the Defendant Nos.11 to 13 which was removed, has been specifically recorded, there is no ambiguity as regards the alignment and the location of the road. There is also merit in the submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that in the light of the panchanama dated 31st October, 2007 wherein the obstruction of the Defendant Nos.11 to 13 which was removed, has been specifically recorded, there is no ambiguity as regards the alignment and the location of the road. The said fact is further fortified, as rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel, by Clause 4 of the order dated 9th December, 2011 and what is required to be done is in fact demarcate the road in terms of Clause 4 of the said order dated 9th December, 2011 and as stated in the panchanama dated 31st October, 2007. There was, in my view, no necessity to issue the directions as contained in Clause 4 of the impugned order. The Executing Court has recorded findings on an aspect which was even not urged on behalf of Defendant Nos.11 to 13, in as much as, the Executing Court has unnecessarily recorded the finding that the decree-holders are not aware of the alignment and they are unnecessarily making a hue and cry of the whole issue. The Executing Court further recorded a finding that the execution dated 31.10.2007 was in violation of the principles of natural justice when the Defendant Nos.11 to 13 themselves have never taken any exception to the said execution at any time. The said objection could have been taken by the Defendant Nos.11 to 13 in the said Writ Petition No.8448 of 2011. However, in the said writ petition the Defendant Nos.11 to 13 have made a statement and given an undertaking which have already been adverted to in the earlier part of this order. The objection, if any, taken by the Defendant Nos.11 to 13 can only be said to be taken in vague terms, which in normal course ought not to have been countenanced. The Executing Court ought not to have jettisoned the execution of the decree at the behest of the Respondent Nos.11 to 13. The conduct of the Defendant Nos.11 to 13 in filing the application Exh.122 in the teeth of the statement made and the undertaking given as recorded in the order dated 9th December, 2011 is bordering on contempt. However, this Court restrains itself from proceeding against the said respondents. The conduct of the Defendant Nos.11 to 13 in filing the application Exh.122 in the teeth of the statement made and the undertaking given as recorded in the order dated 9th December, 2011 is bordering on contempt. However, this Court restrains itself from proceeding against the said respondents. In my view, therefore, the impugned order dated 9th December, 2011 is unsustainable and is required to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside and resultantly the application Exh.122 would stand dismissed. The Executing Court is directed to execute the decree in question in terms of Clause 4 of the order dated 9th December, 2011 passed in Writ Petition No.8448 of 2011 r/w. panchanama dated 31.10.2007 and to remove the obstruction if any, on the said location and the alignment caused by any party and make open the road for the villagers as per the decree passed as long back in the year 2004. The aforesaid directions be carried out if need be with police force, the cost of which to be borne by the petitioners. It is expected that the Defendant Nos.11 to 13 i.e. Respondent Nos.13 to 15 herein, in all fairness, would abide by the statement made by them and the undertaking given by them which has been recorded in the order dated 9th December, 2011. 13. Rule, is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms with parties to bear their respective costs.