Judgment: Heard Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. None for the respondents, though served. 2. The above petition challenges an order passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division at Ponda dated 14/07/2006 passed in Execution Application No.29/2003/A whereby the objections raised by the respondents to the execution proceedings initiated by the petitioner were partly allowed and inter alia a Commissioner was ordered to be appointed to submit his report after inspecting the suit plot G in the property bearing survey no.61/4 in the village of Kavlem in Ponda Taluka and to locate it and identify the same as per the suit agreement and to submit a report along with four copies thereof. 3. Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the learned Judge has come to the conclusion that the Commissioner is to be appointed to identify the suit plot G when according to him in the decree which is sought to be executed the question of identification has been concluded. The learned Counsel has thereafter taken me through the pleadings in the original suit and pointed out that the discrepancies in the boundary as mentioned in the agreement were in fact admitted by the respondents and, as such, the question of reopening the said issue in the execution proceedings would not arise. The learned Counsel has also taken me through the plaint and pointed out that the petitioners have relied upon a plan which was duly signed by the parties which is at Exhibit PW1/C in the original records which clearly identifies and depicts the suit plot G directed to be conveyed in favour of the petitioner. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the learned Judge was not justified to hold that decree could not be executed with regard to the dilapidated structure which was existing in the suit plot as according to the learned Counsel the decree speaks for itself and it is clearly held therein that the Sale Deed with respect of plot G is to be conveyed in favour of the petitioner. The learned Counsel has thereafter taken me through the impugned judgment and pointed out that the issues which have already been concluded in the judgment which is sought to be executed are being re-agitated by the respondents. The learned Counsel has thereafter taken me through the impugned judgment and pointed out that the issues which have already been concluded in the judgment which is sought to be executed are being re-agitated by the respondents. The learned counsel further submitted that the executing Court cannot go beyond the decree and, as such, the question of directing the identification of the suit plot G is totally unsustainable. The learned Counsel, as such, submits that the suit is being executed. 4. The respondents though served failed to remain present nor are represented by any Counsel. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. I have also gone through the records. In the decree which is being executed, the learned Judge had directed the respondents to execute a final Sale Deed in favour of the petitioner as per Exhibit PW1/A within a specific period on payment of a sum of Rs.65,000/-. On perusal of the plaint there are specific averments with regard to the plan which was submitted by the respondents to the petitioner. The said plan was duly produced in the suit as Exhibit PW1/C. Hence, the location of the suit plot G is clearly identified and depicted in the said plan at Exhibit PW1/C. In such circumstances, the question of issuing a blanket direction to the Commissioner by the impugned order to identify the suit plot is not at all justified. Be that as it may, considering the defence sought to be raised by the respondents contending inter alia that the suit plot is not vacant at loco, at the most the learned Judge could have directed the Commissioner to demarcate the suit plot G in accordance with the plan which was produced in the said suit. Hence, I find that the said learned Judge was not justified to appoint a Commissioner to identify the suit plot. The learned Judge as such would have to consider whether on the face of the objections raised by the petitioner, it would be appropriate to direct the Commissioner only to demarcate the suit plot in accordance with the plan which has been produced by the petitioner and which is at Exhibit PW1/C. As far as the dilapidated structure is concerned Shri Usgaonkar, learned Counsel has pointed out that in the meanwhile the said structure no longer exists as the same has collapsed. In view of the above, considering that the respondents are not present before this Court, I find it appropriate that the learned Judge be directed to decide the objections at Exhibit 7 and Exhibit 21 in the light of the observations made herein above in accordance with law. 6. In view of the above, I pass the following order: ORDER (i) The impugned order dated 14/07/2006 is quashed and set aside. (ii) The learned Civil Judge Senior Division at Ponda is directed to decide the objections at exhibit 7 and exhibit 21 in the execution proceedings no.29/1003 afresh in the light of the observations made herein above in accordance with law. (iii) All contentions of the parties on merits are left open. (iv) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. (v) Petition stand disposed of. (vi) Interim relief if any stands vacated.