1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5156/2011 (JITENDRA D. AHIRRAO VERSUS MOHD. KHALID GAYASHUDDIN QURESHI & OTHERS) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Bhushan Mohta, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 15 , 2011 . By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the trial Court on 07.07.2011 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for impounding of the document at Exhibit 66. The petitioner is the original defendant. A suit was filed by the plaintiffs for specific performance of contract. The plaintiffs tendered the evidence and produced the original agreement of sale dated 18.12.2006. The defendant-petitioner did not raise any objection when the document was exhibited. The defendant-petitioner filed the application for impounding the agreement of sale when the matter was fixed for the cross- examination of the defendant-petitioner. The trial Court, by the impugned order dated 07.07.2011, rejected the application filed by the petitioner. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the agreement of sale annexed to the petition, it appears that the possession was not handed over to the plaintiff at the time of execution of the agreement of sale. It was only agreed between the parties that the petitioner would deliver the vacant possession of the premises to the plaintiff at the time of registration 2 of the sale-deed. Considering the fact that the document was exhibited and there was no stipulation in the agreement of sale about the actual delivery of possession of the property to the plaintiff at the time of execution of the agreement of sale or even thereafter, the trial Court rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner, when the matter was posted for the cross- examination of the petitioner. The judgment reported in 2004(3) Mh.L.J. 357 (Sheshrao Bhikaji Kale Versus Damodar Pandhare) and relied on by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be of any assistance to the case of the petitioner as in the reported case there was a stipulation in the agreement that the possession was delivered to the vendee. Moreover, this is not a case, where it was agreed that the possession of the property was agreed to be transferred to the plaintiff before the execution of the agreement of sale or at the time of the execution of the agreement of sale or after the execution of such agreement of sale. In the instant case, the possession was to be delivered at the time of registration of the sale-deed. The judgment reported in 2010(4) Mh.L.J. 22 (Santosh Anant Raut Versus Pukharaj Chogmal Rathod & another) and relied on by the counsel for the petitioner would also not be helpful to the petitioner in this case in view of the provisions of Sections 34 and 35 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1948. Moreover, the plaintiffs were not seeking permission for impounding the document and it was the defendant, who sought the permission to do so. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE