1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3265 OF 2010. (SUMIT L. BHALOTIYA & OTH...VS. PRAMODKUMAR H. AGRAWAL & OTH.). Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. V.R.Mundra, Advocate for Petitioners. Mrs.R.D.Raskar, Advocate for Respondent No. 1. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : OCTOBER 27, 2010. The matter was heard yesterday and after making up its mind, this Court started dictating the order. When the order was being dictated a question answered earlier by the petitioner was again answered by disclosing a directly contradictory situation. The matter was, therefore, adjourned to today. The petitioner has paid costs of Rs.Two Thousand as per yesterday's order. 2. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the judgment debtor gave an undertaking in Special Civil Suit No.50 of 1993 that he would not dispose of the house with plot area 1923 square feet till decision of that suit, as 552 square feet portion of the said house was already disposed of by him on 17.12.1992. That portion has been purchased by the present petitioner subsequently. The impugned order does not show consideration of this sale deed dated 17.12.1992 or the sale of 552 square feet portion from the suit house, & in operative part, entire house property with 2 plot has been attached. The question, therefore, is whether 552 square feet portion was already separated from remaining portion and was placed in possession of vendors of the petitioners and subsequently the petitioners have come in possession of that portion. 3. As this fact and its impact has not been looked into, the impugned order passed below Exh.83 is set aside. The said application is restored back to the file of the Executing Court, for its decision according to law. 4. As the matter is being sent back, the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Gondia will attempt to take said decision as early as possible and in any case before 31.12.2010. 5. Till the Court takes fresh decision in this respect, the petitioner and respondents shall maintain status-quo, in relation to the suit property, as on today. 6. The writ petition is thus, partly allowed. No costs. JUDGE RR..