1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 5590/2010. Digambar Ramaji Zade -: VERSUS :- Rewaram Tukaram Wanode and others. 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. DATED : DECEMBER 21, 2010. Heard Shri R.R. Johrapurkar, learned Counsel for petitioner/original plaintiff, Shri Bangadkar, learned Counsel for respondent no.2/original defendant no.2 and Shri M.B. Naidu, learned Counsel for respondent no.3/original defendant no.3. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. Petitioner / plaintiff executed a Sale deed in the year 1983 which mentions delivery of possession and also creates charge for a sum of Rs. 5500/- then outstanding towards loan installment of Land Development Bank. His contention is, as that amount was not paid, 2 possession was not delivered and land remained with him. Accordingly 7/12 extracts from the year 1985-86 till 1991- 92 show that situation. Learned Counsel states that during the pendency of Special Civil Suit No. 235/2006 instituted by the petitioner/plaintiff for recovery of possession and for declaration that Sale deed is not binding upon the purchaser, defendant no.2 sold the property to defendant no.3; Purchaser from petitioner namely defendant no.1 had sold the property to defendant no.2 before institution of the suit. Defendant no.3 had published a notice and in response to it present petitioner / plaintiff had raised objection pointing out his claim. The learned Counsel also states that in Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code proceedings, the Sub Divisional Officer has found respondent no.2 to be in possession. The learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.3 states that perusal of sale-deed itself shows that no title remained with petitioner/plaintiff thereafter, and a charge was created for loan installments then outstanding. According to him, in this situation, consideration of controversy by the Appellate Court is not erroneous or perverse. Respondent no.3 is a purchaser during the 3 pendency of the suit with notice of the stand of present petitioner / plaintiff. The revenue entries prima facie shows that from 1985-86 till 1991-92 the possession of land was with the petitioner/plaintiff. The said position is inconsistent with the stipulation in sale deed. However, at this stage, I find that the controversy cannot be concluded finally as it appears that the amount of loan installments was not paid to the Land Development Bank. Hence, if the respondent no.3 is permitted to develop the land further third party interest will be created and innocent persons may be made to suffer. Interest of justice therefore, demands that the controversy involved in Special Civil Suit No. 235/2006 should be decided at the earliest. The petitioner / plaintiff has only sought temporary injunction restraining respondent no.3 from creating any third party interest. In this situation the same deserves to be granted. Accordingly, during the pendency of the Special Civil Suit No. 235/2006, respondent no.3 is restrained from creating any third party interest or from changing its nature. The proceedings are expedited. The trial Court shall attempt to decide the same as early as possible and in any case by 30.09.2011. The parties shall make appropriate arrangement and cooperate with the Trial 4 Court in expeditious disposal thereof. Writ Petition is thus partly allowed. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no orders as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.