1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3690 OF 2009 Babu s/o Sahebrao Kolhe, Age: 39 years, Occ: Agril., R/o. Bhendegaon, Tq. Loha, Dist.Nanded. .. Petitioner Versus Bapurao Gynoba Wadje, Age: 63 years, Occ: Agril., R/o.Bhendegaon, Tq.Loha, Dist. Nanded & Anr. .. Respondent ... Mr. Sanjay Kolhare, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.B. Pulkudwar, Advocate for Resp.Nos.1 & 2. ... CORAM : K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 1ST OCTOBER, 2009. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 2 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner- original plaintiff challenges the judgment dated 17-11-2008 passed by the Adhoc District Judge-1,Kandhar District Nanded, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 11/2007. A few facts of the matter are as under. . It is the case of the petitioner-original plaintiff that in view of agreement to sell dated 14-12-2003, he agreed to purchase the agricultural land admeasuring 57 Ares out of land Gat No. 22 situated at Ambulgaon, Tq. Kandhar District Nanded. As per the said agreement to sell, he paid sum of Rs.40,000/- in cash to the respondents and remaining sum of Rs. 10,000/- agreed to be paid on or before 30-12-2006 at the time of the execution of the registered sale deed. It is the case of the petitioner that in agreement to sale dated 14-12-2003, it is specifically stated that possession of the suit land handed over to the petitioner on 14-01-2003 and since then he is in 3 possession of the same. As the respondents started disturbing his possession, the petitioner filed R.C.S. No. 9/2007 for specific performance of the agreement dated 14-12-2003 and for injunction. In the said suit, the petitioner preferred application for injunction restraining the respondents from interfering his possession. Said application was decided by the Civil Judge, J.D. Loha on 07-06-2007 and granted injunction in favour of the petitioner. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 07-06-2007, the respondents- original defendants preferred M.C.A. No.11/2007. In the said appeal, the petitioner preferred application for stay of the order passed by the trial Court dated 07-06-2007. The Appellate Court by order dated 21-07-2007 stayed the execution and implementation of the order dated 07-06-2007 and thereafter, allowed M.C.A. No.11/2007 by the judgment dated 17-11-2008. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 17-11-2008, 4 the petitioner preferred present Writ Petition. 4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in view of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the petitioner is entitled to the order of injunction against the respondents for protecting his possession. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents denied the petitioner's possession in respect of the suit property. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents tendered across the Bar copies of 7/12 extracts issued on 10-05-2007, 15-07-2009, 04-09-2009 and 14-09-2009 showing that property stands in their name and they are in possession. 5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that though the petitioner applied to the Revenue Authority for entertaining his name in the revenue record, same was refused by them on the ground that the 5 suit is pending in Civil Court. He further relied on certificate issued by Sarpanch dated 05-09-2009 stating that the petitioner is in possession of the suit property since 31-01-2003. Admittedly, the petitioner failed to produce on record any revenue record to show that he is in possession of the suit property and is cultivating the same since 2003. 6. In any case, the agreement to sell dated 14-12-2003 is not a registered document. Same is executed on stamp of Rs.20/-. Considering 7/12 extracts produced by the respondents, I do not find any substance to interfere with the judgment and order dated 17-11-2008 passed by the Adhoc District Judge-1 Kandhar, District Nanded in M.C.A. No.11/2008. Writ Petition is dismissed summarily. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances in the present case, the trial Court is directed to decide R.C.S. No. 9/2007 within nine (9) months 6 from the receipt of writ from this Court. [ K.K. TATED, J.] sut/OCT09/wp3690.09