1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR APPEAL AGAINST ORDER NO. 75 OF 2008 (Dnyaneshwar Ramchand Ganvir vs. Baba Tikaramji Nighot and Anr.) 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. SEPTEMBER 24, 2008. Heard Shri Dongre, learned counsel for the appellant – plaintiff and Shri Khubalkar, learned counsel for the respondents. The Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, has rejected the application at Exh. 5 moved by present appellant in S.C.S. No.562 of 2006 for specific performance, after noticing that the plaintiff has failed to make out prima facie case and suit property was already sold. In para 1 of the order averments in the plaint are mentioned, in para 2 stand in defence has been reproduced. In para 3, which consisted of only five sentences, two reasons are given. The first one is failure to make out prima facie case and second is sale of suit property. The perusal of written statement filed by the respondents itself shows that they accept that they expressed desire with present appellant to convert their land into non-agricultural one and 2 thereafter to develop it. It is also accepted that the plaintiff insisted defendant No. 1 to open a joint account in UCO Bank at Hingna and accordingly, account was opened. However, they have denied their signatures on alleged agreement for sale and their grievance is, only because of oral understanding, the appellant – plaintiff has taken some steps. The steps which are taken by appellant – plaintiff are preparation of lay out in the portion agreed to be purchased by him, entering into agreements for their sale with proposed purchasers, collection of amount from those proposed buyers. 55 plots were prepared and therefore, it cannot be accepted that present respondents were not aware of all the activities of preparation of the lay out or demarcation of plots. It is also apparent that the property could not have been put to non-agriculture use without their consent. The case of the plaintiff is that he has made over amount from time to time and it is by 54 vouchers, which are signed by the respondents. There is dispute between the parties about number of vouchers signed by the respondents. Shri Khubalkar, learned counsel states that none of the vouchers were signed by the respondents and he states that the agreement for 3 sale is also not signed by the respondents. The facts above prima facie show that there was some understanding or agreement between the parties and in pursuance thereof, lay out was prepared and plots were allowed to be sold. Otherwise, there was no point in opening a joint account with stranger for any other reason. The contention that suit property itself has been transferred in favour of one Amit Anil Mohril is not substantiated because no sale deed is produced on record to establish the identity of property sold. If the property is already sold, it is clear that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents, if they are asked to maintain status quo. In the circumstances, I find that the Court below has failed to exercise jurisdiction available to it in the matter. The impugned order is, therefore, quashed and set aside. The parties are directed to maintain status quo in relation to ownership and development of suit property, as on today, during the pendency of the suit. As the suit is of the year 2006, the same is expedited and the Court below is directed to decide it as early as possible and in any case within a period of two years from the date of communication of this order to it. 4 Needless to mention that this Court has only considered the case prima facie. Exhibit 5 stands accordingly modified only to the extent mentioned above. Appeal against Order is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.