1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3589 OF 2008. Purushottam S/o Bhagwat Dhande ... Petitioner. Versus Sadashiv Bhagwat Dhande and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.G.V.Wani, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.P.N.Kutti, advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.A.G.Talhar, advocate for the Respondent Nos.4 and 7. Mr.V.D.Hon, advocate for the Respondent No.10. Respondent Nos. 5 and 8 served. Respondent NO.6 deleted. Petition dismissed against Respondent No.9. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 16.06.2009. PER COURT 1. The petitioner is original defendant No.3 in suit bearing (Spl.C.S.No.312/2002) filed 2 by the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. The suit is for partition and separate possession. The plaintiffs alleged that the petitioner had received Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty five lacs) and had relinquished his right to claim his share in the joint Hindu family property. They produced a document styled as "Saude Pawati" dated 2.9.1997 which is allegedly executed by the petitioner on a stamp paper of Rs.20/-. The petitioner urged to impound the document in view of Section 33 of the Stamps Act. 2. The learned Civil Judge held that the document is not an agreement of sale as such but could be regarded as only a payment receipt or acknowledgment. By the impugned order, learned Civil Judge declined to impound the document. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the rival submissions it is quite clear that the disputed question is regarding nature of the document. The suit is yet to be finally decided. The impounding can be done at any stage of the suit. 3 Therefore, if on the basis of evidence, the trial Court would come to the conclusion that the nature of document is such that impounding is necessary then it may be impounded even at the later stage. I have perused the relevant copy of the document. The document shows that the share of the petitioner was not crystallised and, therefore, no description thereof is given in the agreement of sale. The nature of the terms of agreement are also not explicit. Even assuming that he agreed to alienate his undivided share, which is not specific, the same can be duly considered after the completion of the evidence or at any stage when the nature of the document would be explicit. The prima facie finding of the learned Civil Judge does not call for interference at the present stage. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, the question pertaining to nature of the document and requirement to impound the same is kept open. 4. The interim relief is vacated. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp358908