IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5860 OF 2007 Shri Prakash Nandlal Lakhwani & Ors. ...Petitioners V/s. Shri Shivajirao Ganpatrao Kadam ...Respondent ...... Mr.Amit Borkar i/b Ms.Rutuja Ambekar for Petitioners. Mr.Jaydeep Deo for Respondent. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. JANUARY 13, 2009. JANUARY 13, 2009. JANUARY 13, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Insofar as the direction issued by the lower Court not to disturb possession of the Defendant in relation to the suit property is concerned, no interference is warranted. 3. The only question is: whether the : 2 : Defendant is entitled to develop the suit property. If the Defendant does so during the pendency of the Suit, it will result into fate accompli situation for the Plaintiff. In that, the Sale Deed in favour of the Plaintiff is of earlier point of time. It was executed in 1994 though formally registered in the year 2001. It is well established position that after registration, it relates back to the date of the execution of the Sale Deed. 4. However, as of now, the finding of fact recorded by the two Courts below that the Defendant is in legal possession of the suit property even if accepted as it is, as observed earlier, the Defendant cannot be permitted to develop the property till the disposal of the Suit. In other words, both the parties will maintain status-quo as of today with regard to the suit property. This arrangement will continue till the disposal of the Suit. 5. The appropriate course in the fact situation of the present case is to expedite the : 3 : hearing of the Suit as well as the counter claim. The same be disposed of preferably on or before 31st July 2009. 6. Parties through their Counsel assure to extend full cooperation to the Trial Court for early disposal of the proceedings pending before it. That assurance is accepted. 7. Petition disposed of on the above terms. 8. Office to examine whether the Petitioner is required to pay two sets of court fee, as, even though it was one appeal filed by the Petitioner before the lower Court, it questioned two separate orders passed by the Trial Court on application filed by the Plaintiff and Defendant respectively. The Petitioner shall pay deficit court fees if called upon by the Office to do so within one week from receipt of such intimation. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.