1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4425 OF 2009 (Vijay Gajananrao Barsagade vs. Sou. Shobha Vijayrao Kshirsagar & Anr.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. JANUARY 06, 2010. The matter is for final disposal. Heard Shri Charpe, learned counsel for the petitioner. Respondent No.1, though served has chosen not to appear. Respondent No.2 is a formal party and hence service upon it has been dispensed with. The case of the petitioner – plaintiff is that sale deed dated 07.02.1989 was kept pending by Sub- Registrar as no objection certificate from Nagpur Improvement Trust was not there. Because of this, on 11.09.1995, there was an agreement between the parties whereby Respondent No.1 (defendant No.1) agreed to accept Rs.90,000/- towards refund of her sale consideration and the transaction was to be treated as cancelled. The amount of Rs.45,000/- was paid on 11.09.1995 and balance amount was to be paid thereafter. However, in this situation, without any notice to the petitioner / plaintiff, Respondent No.1 got the sale deed registered on 08.02.2000 with case that No 2 objection certificate of Nagpur Improvement Trust was not required as plot was not within NIT area. Thereafter she started harassing the petitioner claiming to be owner of the suit plot and trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner, because of which suit was required to be filed. In this back ground, Shri Charpe, learned counsel contends that the Courts below have overlooked the fact of payment of Rs.45,000/- and also the fact that there was an agreement on 11.09.1995. In any case, according to him, the fact that sale deed was not registered on 07.02.1989 and it came to be registered on 08.02.2000 was apparent on record. In these circumstances, it is apparent that there is ample material on record to hold that prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss lean in favour of the petitioner. The Courts have found that sale deed dated 07.02.1989 itself disclosed that possession was handed over by the petitioner – plaintiff to Respondent No.1. The agreement dated 11.09.1995 specifically does not disclose that that possession was returned by Respondent No.1 to the petitioner. The petitioner has not pointed out any specific time limit within which balance was to be paid and also the steps taken by him to pay balance amount and withdraw the sale deed which was then pending for registration. The fact that the respondent got sale deed registered on 8.2.2000 has been appreciated in this back ground. 3 I, therefore, do not find any perversity or jurisdictional error in this matter. No case is made out warranting any interference in concurrent findings reached by the authorities below. However, considering the nature of controversy and the fact that the suit is of the year 2005, the proceedings in Regular Civil Suit No. 244 of 2005 are expedited and the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, is directed to decide the Civil Suit as early as possible and in any case by 31.12.2010. Only to see that the property remains available and unencumbered if decree is ultimately required to be passed in favour of the petitioner - plaintiff, Respondent No.1 is restrained from creating any third party interest or creating any encumbrance in any way during the pendency of the suit. With this direction, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.