1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Writ Petition NO.5885/2010 Bharat P. Manawatkar and another Vs. Smt. Sitabai K. Kamble 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. DECEMBER13, 2010. Heard Advocate C. A. Joshi for the petitioners. Against concurrent orders granting temporary injunction to respondent-plaintiff, present writ petition is filed. Contention is in plaint no declaration about fraudulent nature of agreement is sought and similarly, no relief of restoration of possession is sought. The trial Court as also Appellate Court could not have issued mandatory injunction at interlocutory stage directing the petitioner to remove locks and restore possession. Learned counsel states that stamp paper on which agreement for sale has been executed was purchased by son of respondent and he further states that huge amount has been paid by petitioners to respondent. Originally only restraining order to protect existing possession was sought but later on by another application restoration of possession by interim order has been prayed. The Courts have concurrently applied their mind. It 2 appears that in plaint as filed and temporary injunction was prayed for. Though there is some inconsistency in suit - relief & prayers under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of C. P. C. but then loss of possession is subsequent to filing of suit. Agreement (alleged) is not registered and huge payment made by petitioners is also looked into by both the Courts. The alleged document carries only thumb impression of respondent. The said document is also not on requisite stamp paper. As all relevant aspects are looked into by bot the Courts below, I do not find any jurisdictional error. Hence, writ petition is not entertained. However, considering the fact that total sale consideration was Rs. Four lakhs and out of it Rs. 3,40,000/- is claimed to have been paid, proceedings in suit before trial Court are expedited and the trial Court is directed to attempt to decide the suit as early as possible and in any case within one year from the date of communication of this order to it. JUDGE Ambulkar