executing Court though has framed a correct question in paragraph
No. 8 of the order, the reasoning given by the learned Executing Court
is to the contrary. Despite the learned executing Court noting the
aforementioned facts, solely interpreting the order dated 15.04.2013
which notes that as ad interim in operation shall remain in force till
admission / hearing, learned executing Court had concluded that since
hearing of First Appeal is not yet completed, it is obvious that ad-
interim relief in favour of Defendant No. 4 is in force till today and
therefore in the opinion of the executing Court unless and until the
final hearing of the aforesaid two First Appeals is completed, the
decree passed in SC Suit No. 2717/1999 cannot be executed. Such a
reasoning is not only incorrect but the facts in the present case are
extremely gross. By passing such an order in execution proceedings,
what the executing Court has done is to give an imprimatur to all
possible delaying tactics employed by Respondent No. 9 in the present
case to delay the execution of the decree. I say this with utmost
responsibility after perusing the above quoted orders. Mr. Mirza
would submit that the subject structure standing on the suit land was
agreed to be demolished and in lieu thereof, the Partnership Firm
constructed the building of the Society after utilizing the FSI and
having taken the entire benefit. While hearing this submission, Mr.
Damle made submissions across the bar that Respondent No. 9 who is
