1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.2068 of 2010 (Vishnu s/o Vitthal Faltankar and others v. Gajanan s/o Bajirao Deshmukh and others) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri S.V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for Petitioners. Coram : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. Dated : 29 th April, 2010 Heard. The Trial Court rejected application Exhibit 5 of the respondents/plaintiffs and the Appellate Court has granted it. The Trial Court relied upon a document styled as “Tabe Isar Paoti” to conclude that the respondents/plaintiffs had handed over possession to the petitioners/defendants. The Appellate Court has perused the contents of the document to note that it did not contain any stipulation of handing over possession. It further noticed that the possession of the respondents/plaintiffs at least till 4-3-2008 was accepted by the present petitioners and then it has relied upon 7/12 extract of the year 2008-2009 to note that the said document supported the case of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs approached with the case that he had obtained loan from the petitioners/defendants and at that time, their signatures were obtained on blank papers by defendants. In this background, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, who states that the nature of transaction is apparent not only from heading of document but also from its contents where the same words, i.e. “Tabe Isar 2 Paoti” are used. He further states that as this admission is dated 4-3-2008, it is apparent that till 4-3-2008, the respondents/plaintiffs were in possession and this admission cannot be said to be a fact against the interest of the present petitioners. According to him, thus the Appellate Court has acted erroneously in exercise of the jurisdiction. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioners, I have perused the said “Tabe Isar Paoti”. It uses the words “Tabe Isar Paoti” at least thrice in the body of the document, but then it also stipulates that proper sale-deed will be executed after obtaining permission. The amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is alleged to be received by the respondents/plaintiffs and total sale consideration as disclosed is Rs.1,95,000/-. Considering the defence of respondents/plaintiffs, the stand in written statement by the present petitioner and the document, it is clear that appreciation of material by the Appellate Court cannot be said to be perverse. The suit as filed is still pending and in these circumstances, the proceedings therein are expedited. The Trial Court shall attempt to decide the same as early as possible. With these observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Judge. pdl