(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 1488 OF 2011 Sachin Dharamchand Katariya, Age : 32 years, Occupation : Agriculture & Business, R/o. c/o. Life Time Munot Chambers, Navi Peth, Ahmednagar, .. Petitioner At Post : Taluka & Dist. Ahmednagar. (Original plaintiff) versus Shri Dr. Prakash Kanheyalal Kankariya, Age : 56 years, Occupation : Medical Practitioner & Agriculture, R/o. Manik Chowk, Ahmednagar, .. Respondent At Post : Taluka & District : Ahmednagar. (Original defendant) ....................... Mr. S.P. Brahme, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Bora, Advocate, for the respondent. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 18TH APRIL 2011 (2) ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Adv. Mr. S.P. Brahme, for the petitioner, and Adv. Mr. S.S. Bora, for the respondent. 2. Adv. Mr. S.S. Bora is seeking time to file reply on record as according to him, the document being pressed into service is fabricated one. At this stage, this court is not concerned with that aspect. 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent. 4. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 12-1-2011, passed below Exhibit 1, as well as order dated 14-2-2011, passed below Exhibit 33, by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kopargaon, in Special Civil Suit No. 106/2010. 5. Adv. Mr. Brahme, for the petitioner, contends that the document or agreement styled as Sathekhat does not contemplate delivery of possession to purchaser at any time prior to registration and execution of sale deed and hence its impounding is unwarranted. (3) 6. Adv. Mr. Bora, for the respondent, is supporting the impugned order. 7. In the light of express language of Article 25 of Schedule I of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958, and judgment of Division Bench of this court reported at 2006(3) Mah.L.R. 164, in the case of Baluwantgir Ganpatgir Giri, through his legal representatives Vs. Manasi Construction & Developers through its partners, the document cannot be viewed as conveyance and, therefore, cannot be impounded. 8. Adv. Mr. Brahme, for the petitioner, has stated that the petitioner has produced original document before the trial court. The question, whether document is genuine or fabricated / bogus can be looked into by the trial court in its own wisdom. 9. In the result, the petition is allowed. (i) The impugned order dated 12-1-2011, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kopargaon, below Exhibit 1 in Special Civil Suit No. 106/2010, is quashed and set aside. (ii) Needless to mention, that subsequent order dated (4) 14-2-2011, below Exhibit 33, refusing to recall the order dated 12-1-2011, therefore, cannot stand and it is also quashed and set aside. 10. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp1488