1 wp2214.11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2214 OF 2011 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. V.V. Bhavthankar, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. S.S. Thombre, Advocate for respondent no.1. 1. Heard Advocates Mr. Bhavthankar for petitioners and Mr. Thombre for respondent. 2. Advocate Mr. Bhavthankar by placing reliance upon the judgment reported at "2005(1) All M.R. 335" ( M/s Conwood Agencies Pvt. Ltd., V/s Namdeo Pandurang Panchal and anr) contends that under stamped document could not have been allowed to be relied upon by the respondent and rejection of application on the ground that it is for the respondent-plaintiff to seek impounding thereof is misconceived. He contends that the present petitioner-defendant has also right to point out the legal provision in this respect. 3. Advocate Mr. Thombre for respondent no.1 contends that reason given by trial Court is just and proper. In the alternative, he states that the document 2 wp2214.11 sought to be impounded can not be construed as conveyance as possession is not handed over thereunder. 4. Perusal of the impugned order passed by trial Court does not show consideration of this question whether the said document is conveyance or not. Perusal of the say filed by the plaintiff reveal, denial of fact that agreement is cmpulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act and statement that there is no reference to possession in that document. 5. If that be the position, the question whether the plaintiff or defendant has right to move such application will be secondary. Trial Court has to first find out whether the document tendered before it is conveyance or not. Hence, leaving rival contentions about the correctness or otherwise of impugned order open, the said order is quashed and set aside. Trial Court to hear application at Exhibit-75 in the light of say filed on it to find out whether the document is a conveyance or not. Thereafter the trial Court apply the law as pointed out by the parties. Petition is partly allowed. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE. 24.03.2011 gas/wp2214.11