1 wp2212.11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2212 OF 2011 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. P.M. Shah, Senior Counsel holding for Mr. P.S. Shendurnikar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Mukul Kulkarni holding for Mr. A.T. Patel, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 9. Mr. D.R. Korde, A.G.P. for respondent no.11. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 7TH APRIL, 2011 Heard Mr. Shah Senior Advocate with Advocate Mr. P.S. Shendurnikar, for petitioners, Advocate Mr. Kulkarni for respondent nos. 1 to 9 and learned A.G.P. for respondent no.11. 2. The High Court has in A.O. specifically directed maintenance of status-quo to the extent of property described in agreement of sale dated 22.07.2005. The agreement shows total area of Gut no. 154 to be 10 hectors and thereafter mentions that out of it, 6 Hector was remaining and 25% of it was acquired by CIDCO therefore, the agreement was in relation to 4.5 Hectors. 2 wp2212.11 3. Perusal of the plaint particularly prayer clause shows the prayer for direction to execute sale deed in relation to entire 10 Hector and 65 R. Paragraph no.1 in the plaint mentions area of 6 H 57 R. 4. In the impugned judgment dated 09.02.2011 while permitting the present respondent nos.1 to 9 to sale about 60 R of land to respondent no.10, the M.R.T. has found that properties involved in the Civil Suit and properties sought to be transferred to respondent no.10 are distinct. 5. The contention before this Court is, the respondent nos. 1 to 9 executed various sale deeds, and therefore, only 6 Hector of land was left with them and prayer in plaint for direction to execute the sale deed in relation to 10 Hector is inadvertent error. It is further pointed out that M.R.T. itself has found that if there is any dispute in area or boundaries, the dispute can be resolved by the Civil Court. According to learned Senior Advocate, therefore, the petitioners has agreed to purchase the entire balance land with the respondent nos.1 to 9 as per the agreement dated 22nd July, 2005. 6. Various sale deeds allegedly executed by the respondent nos. 1 to 9 prior to execution of the agreement in favour of petitioners were not pointed out to the M.R.T. and therefore, M.R.T. had no occasion to consider it. Observations of this Court that status-quo is 3 wp2212.11 maintained only in relation to properties described in agreement of sale dated 22.07.2005 is eloquent in this back ground. 7. I therefore do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity. The dispute between the respondent nos. 1 to 9 and the petitioners is already pending before the Civil Court. Hence liberty to petitioners to obtain the appropriate orders from the Civil Court in this respect, Petition is rejected. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp2212.11