1 wp10493.10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10493 OF 2010 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mrs. C.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.C. Sant, Advocate for respondent no.1 to 3. Mr. M.S. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent no.4. Mr. D.R. Korde, A.G.P. for respondent no.5. 1. Heard Advocates Mrs. Deshmukh for the petitioner- plaintiff, Mr. Sant for respondent nos.1 to 3 and Mr. Kulkarni for respondent no.4 and the learned A.G.P. for respondent no.5. 2. After hearing the respective Counsel and perusal of the agreement for sale dated 29th May, 1986, it is apparent that possession is agreed to be handed over to the proposed purchaser or his nominee at the time of execution of sale deed. The situation is therefore covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench reported at "2006(6) All M.R. 109" ( Balawanigir Ganpatgir Giri (Deceased through L.Rs.) V/s Manasi Construction & Developers and others). 2 wp10493.10 3. Learned A.G.P. as also Advocate Mr. Sant and Mr. Kulkarni have attempted to urge that though there is express stipulation contrary to the agreement, from plaint itself it is clear that the possession is being claimed to have been handed over at the time of agreement. According to them, on account of such claim in the plaint the document becomes conveyance. 4. The test to be applied is qua the document which is sought to be impounded. The terms and conditions in that documents are decisive. Same can not be supplemented by importing stipulation from elsewhere. The sanctity and validity of the plaint is different question with which this Court is not concerned. 5. It is apparent, the impugned order dated 22.06.2010 which has effect impounding the said agreement is therefore unsustainable. The said order passed below Exhibit 85 is quashed and set aside. Application at Exhibit-85 is rejected. Rule made absolute accordingly. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE. 10.02.2011 gas/wp10493.10