1 WP No.3891/10 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3891 of 2010 Career Square and others ... Petitioners versus Sachin Ratanlal Bhattad and others ... Respondents ... Mr.R.D.Soni i/b M/s.Ram & Co. for the petitioners Mr.Sandip Shinde for respondent no.1. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 21st July 2011 P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent no.1. 2. By this petition, petitioner challenges two orders. The first being a common order dated 1 January 2010 passed below Exhibit 98 and 100 for amendment of a plant and amendment of application for injunction and the second being order dated 25 January 2010 allowing the plaintiff’s application of impounding of a document. 3. So far as common order dated 1 January 2011 allowing the application for amendment of the plaint and application for 2 WP No.3891/10 injunction is concerned, this court (B.R.Gavai,J) vide order dated 4 March 2011 at the time of preliminary hearing on admission has observed that there is no error in the order and has issued notice only so far as the second order i.e order dated 25 January 2010 passed below Exhibit 128 about impounding of the document is concerned. In view of this, no interference is called for in the common order dated 1 January 2010 passed below Exhibit 98 and 100. 3. So far as the order dated 25 January 2010 passed below Exhibit 128 is concerned, it is document styled as “earnest money receipt”. It is produced by the plaintiff and is not written on any stamp paper and does not bear any adhesive stamp either. The defendant nos.5,6 and 7 in the suit made an application that the document was not stamped and therefore was not admissible in evidence and that the same may be impounded and sent to the collector for recovery of the same duty and penalty. By an order dated 25 January 2010, the Court allowed the application and impounded the document and sent it to the Collector for determination and recovery of the stamp duty and the penalty. The present petitioners who are defendant nos.8 to 10 in the suit have challenged the order. In my view, the petitioners have no locus to challenge the order. They are not the parties to the receipt. It is between the plaintiff and and defendant nos.1 to 4. The document has been impounded. The plaintiff has not made any grievance regarding the impounding of the document. 3 WP No.3891/10 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the document is not a concluded contract and therefore not an instrument. As I have held that the petitioners have no right to challenge the impugned order and it is not necessary to consider the contention. Even otherwise being interlocutory, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. Writ Petition is rejected summarily. (D.G.KARNIK, J)