1 Lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3331 OF 2010 Indrapal Singh Sodhi : Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra & ors. : Respondents. Smt. Nisha Valani for the Petitioner. Mr. C R Sonawane, AGP for Respondent No.1. Mr. Akash Acharya i/by Mr. S N Acharya for Respondent No.6. CORAM : A. M. KHANWILKAR, R. M. SAVANT, JJ. DATED : 05th May 2010 P.C. : 1 Heard counsel for the parties. 2 The argument of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner is neither the guarantor nor the borrower of the Respondent No.6-Bank. The argument clearly overlooks the position emerging from registered document dated 9 th August 2001. As per the said agreement, the Petitioner has transferred the suit property in favour of Madhu Sanjay Agarwal. Accordingly to Respondent No.6-Bank, it is Madhu Sanjay 2 Agarwal who has mortgaged the property with the Respondent No.6- Bank and the action is founded on the said transaction. 3 It is not open to us to ignore the registered agreement and accept the argument of the Petitioner that there is subsequent memorandum of understanding executed between the parties considering the fact that the society was not transferring the flat in favour of the Petitioner in spite of repeated requests. 4 The fact remains that as per the registered agreement dated 9 th August 2001, the title of the property vested in favour of Madhu Sanjay Agarwal who in turn has mortgaged the said property with the Respondent No.6-Bank. The said person having failed to pay the dues of the Respondent No.6-Bank, it is open to the Respondent No.6 to proceed against the said property being a mortgaged property in accordance with law. There is nothing on record to indicate that the Petitioner has sought declaration that the registered agreement dated 9 th August 2001 is not binding on him as such. 3 5 In the circumstances, this petition is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed accordingly. 6 At this stage, the counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner be given liberty to approach the appropriate forum and seek for relief as may be necessary and permissible in accordance with law and till such time the Petitioner should not be dispossessed from the suit property. 7 The counsel for the Respondent No.6-Bank submits that the Respondent No.6-Bank has already taken symbolic possession of the suit property and the Bank is in the process of selling the same for recovering the dues of the bank. 8 The bank may proceed with the said action but shall not physically dispossess the Petitioner for a period of one week from today. In the mean time it will be open to the Petitioner to approach appropriate forum for such relief as may be advised and the said forum would be free to consider the request of the petitioner for further protection beyond one week on the terms as may be found appropriate. 4 9 We make it clear that this order is not an expression of opinion either way on the merits of the controversy that will have to be answered in the proceedings resorted to by the Petitioner. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) (A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.)