HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. No.4632 of 2010 Dated 29-11-2010 Between: Jami Prakasarao and another. …Petitioner. And: Chippada Bhaskara Rao. …Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. No.4632 of 2010 ORDER: This is defendants’ revision who are aggrieved by the order of the court below treating the receipt dated 26-4-2006 filed and marked by the plaintiff as Ex.A.1 for impounding and adjudication as an agreement of sale and not as a receipt. Heard both the learned counsel appearing on either side. Respondent/plaintiff herein filed a suit for specific performance O.S.No.414 of 2007 based on the aforesaid document dated 26-4-2006. According to the respondent/plaintiff, there was an agreement of sale and Ex.A.1 evidences the same. The petitioners/defendants are contesting the suit and have filed written statement specifically denying the execution of the said document and have further claimed in para 14 of written statement that plaintiff is not entitled for relief of specific performance of contract as there is no agreement of sale between the defendant and the plaintiff and there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant. Thus, the said suit is contested by the petitioner/defendant interalia on the ground that there is no agreement in existence for enforcing under Specific Relief Act. The present impugned order now passed by the court below proceeds to treat the said Ex.A.1 as an agreement of sale and impounded the same for adjudication. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants submits that the impugned order would amount to that the court below is accepting Ex.A.1 as an agreement of sale without trial and opportunity to the defendants to establish that it is not an agreement of sale. Learned counsel for the petitioners says that since that is the contentious issue in the suit, pending adjudication, the order impugned treating the said document as agreement of sale would seriously prejudice the petitioners. While the document has been impounded at the request of the respondent herein and the mere adjudication of the said document for the purpose of stamp duty and penalty, if any, does not require any interference by this Court. However, the appreciation of the petitioners’ counsel appears justified. As is noticed from the written statement of the petitioners/defendants mentioned above, the contentious issue among the parties before the trial court is whether there is any subsisting agreement of sale which is to be specifically enforced. Since the said issue is to be decided by the trial court during the trial on the basis of the evidence adduced by both the parties, the present impugned order of the court below treating the document as agreement of sale is only to be treated as a tentative and interim adjudication which will have no reflection on the final adjudication of the said aspect in the suit. The said observation of the court below treating the document Ex.A.1 as agreement of sale is only for the purpose of adjudication as sought for by the plaintiff and would not amount to approving the said document as agreement of sale at this stage. This Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the trial court shall adjudicate on the said issue during the trial and final disposal of the suit as mentioned above. No costs. _____________________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Dated 29-11-2010 Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. No.4632 of 2010 Dated 29-11-2010