1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 776/2010 (Vikas Keshaorao Shingade VERSUS Sub Divisional Officer, Amravati & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. A.V. Gawande, counsel for the petitioner. Mrs. S.S. Wandile, A.G.P. for the R-1. CORAM : S.A. BOBDE AND SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, JJ. DATE : FEBRUARY 16, 2010. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.12.2009 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer giving the notice to the petitioner for taking possession of the property in question which is said to be mortgaged with the respondent no.2-Bank. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the loan in question was taken by the respondent no.4 and that party has erroneously and fraudulently mortgaged the petitioner's land as a security for the loan and, therefore, possession cannot be taken of the petitioner's property, which is, in fact, not mortgaged with the respondent no.2-Bank. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in fact, the petitioner's signatures have been forged on the mortgaged deed. 2 We find that the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner involves disputed questions of fact and it would not be appropriate for this Court to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We see no merit in the petition, which is dismissed. No order as to costs. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all such questions in appropriate proceedings. JUDGE JUDGE APTE