1 wp3860.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3860 OF 2011 Digambar s/o Ramchandra Thadke, Age: 62 years, Occ: Agril., R/o. Dhosani, Tq. Degloor, District Nanded. ...PETITIONER VERSUS Waghji s/o Vithalrao Patil, Age: 60 years, Occ: Agri., R/o. Dhosani, Tq. Degloor, District Nanded. ...RESPONDENT ... Mr. Anil M. Gaikwad, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Satyajit S. Bora, Advocate h/f Mr. U.B. Bilolikar, Advocate for respondent sole. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 12TH DECEMBER, 2011 PER COURT : . This writ petition is filed against the order passed by the trial Court rejecting the application for amendment of the plaint. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that, after filing the suit, the petitioner was 2 wp3860.11 dispossessed from the suit property and therefore, it was necessary to amend the plaint. The application is partly allowed by the trial Court thereby allowing the petitioner to claim the refund of earnest amount, however so far the amendment to the plaint seeking relief of possession is refused. The Counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the possession is handed over to the petitioner at the time of agreement to sell and therefore, if the petitioner is dispossessed during the pendency of the suit, the amendment to the plaint seeking relief of possession should have been allowed. 3. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that, the petitioner was never in possession of the suit property. Learned Counsel also invited my attention to the findings recorded by the trial Court and submitted that, in case if the person is put in possession by virtue of agreement to sell, in that case such agreement to sell is required to be registered. The trial 3 wp3860.11 Court has discussed the provisions of Section 17(1-A) of the Registration Act,1908 and after taking into consideration the relevant provisions, the trial Court held that, the petitioner failed to prove that he was put in possession of the suit property. Learned Counsel also invited my attention to para-6 of the impugned order and submitted that, after framing the issues, the plaintiff was not diligent in prosecuting the suit. The matter was adjourned ten times for leading evidence by the plaintiff. Lastly, the trial Court was constrained to place the matter for dismissal. Therefore, according to learned Counsel for the respondent, the petition is devoid of any merits, same may be dismissed. 4. Upon appreciating the rival contentions and upon perusal of the impugned order, it is admitted position that agreement to sell is not registered document, the petitioner failed to convince the trial Court that he was put in possession of the suit property. It is settled 4 wp3860.11 position of law that, if the person is put in possession of the property pursuant to agreement to sell, such agreement to sell is required to be registered. At the cost of repetition, it has to be observed that the agreement to sell in the present case was not registered. 5. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of any merits, same stands rejected. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/DEC11