1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6393 OF 2011 Shivaji Mahadeo Jagtap ..Petitioner Versus Balasaheb Narayan Mankar ...Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6491 OF 2011 Ashok Mahadeo Jagtap ...Petitioner Versus Balasaheb Narayan Mankar ...Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6530 OF 2011 Tanaji Mahadu Jagtap ...Petitioner Versus Balasaheb Narayan Mankar ...Respondent Mr.Pratap Patil for the Petitioner Mr.S.S.Shah for the Respondent 2 CORAM:- R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED:- 18th OCTOBER, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard learned Advocates on both sides. These three petitions involve a common point. The petitioner in respective petition is said to have entered into agreement to sale with the respondent and the respondent has filed suit in the appropriate court so as to seek specific performance of said agreement. In order to protect the interest of the plaintiff, plaintiff-respondent did file application for interim relief so as to protect his possession, as also to seek an order of injunction restraining the petitioner from creating third party rights. 2. After having gone through the three impugned orders passed in the respective Misc. Civil Appeals, it is clear that both the courts have recorded finding, ofcourse prime facie, that each of the respondent is in possession of the land in question i.e. in respect of which specific performance is sought. 3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that on the very day 3 when the agreement to sale is said to have been executed, another agreement is executed between the same parties and reading of the two documents together, it would be clear that the transaction covered by the first agreement coupled with the second agreement is nothing but loan agreement and there is nothing like an agreement to sale the property. 4. According to learned Advocate Mr. Pratap Patil, appearing on behalf of each of the petitioner this aspect of the matter is not been considered by the courts below and if this court considers the same, the only conclusion which can be drawn is that the respondent is not in possession of the land in question and as such the order of injunction is required to be set aside. 5. I have considered the contention. The courts below have recorded the finding that the respondent is in possession. The stand of the petitioner that the two documents be read together and the transaction be treated as loan agreement can be treated as a matter of defence. It is also pertinent to note that the second transaction on which specific reliefs is sought pertains to some other plot of land. If this be so, the 4 argument advanced by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that there is nothing like agreement to sale the particular property in respect of which the suit is filed for specific purpose cannot be accepted. Surely the contention of the petitioner in each of the transaction is loan transaction is a matter of merits to be decided at the time of final hearing. In so far as interim relief, the courts have given concurrent finding that the respondents are in possession of the plot and the same are not required to be disturbed. Hence, each of the petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. 6. There shall be no order as to costs. 7. It is clarified that the observations made by any of this order shall not be used by any party at the time of trial. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)