1 wp2184-11 jpc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2184 OF 2011 Masu Bhiwa Randiwe .. Petitioner Versus Bhaskar Shrirang Ingole @ Ingle and others ... Respondents Mr. Purshottam G. Chavan for the petitioner Mr.Ajay A. Joshi for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 CORAM : R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 10rd October, 2011 P.C. 1. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have filed Regular Civil Suit No. 77 of 2006 against the petitioner for specific performance of the agreements to sale dated 6th September, 2001 and 8th January, 2004 respectively. In addition to these two documents, the document dated 8th November, 2004 is also said to have been executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondents, thereby admitting transfer of the land admeasuring 80 R in favour of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and the petitioner was not disputing with the said position. The respondents filed application below Exh.43 for injunction. Similarly, the petitioner had filed a counter claim and had applied for injunction vide application below Exh.18. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pandharpur by order dated 13th 2 wp2184-11 August, 2007, granted the application below Exh.43, thereby granting relief in favour of the respondents nos. 1 to 3 and that application below Exh.18 filed by the petitioner was rejected. The petitioner was restrained from obstructing the respondent's possession over the suit land i.e. Gat No. 458/B area 2.19 HR situated at Ranjani, till disposal of the suit. This common order dated 13th August, 2007 was challenged by filing Miscellaneous Appeal No. 65 of 2007 as well as Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.66 of 2007 by the present petitioner before the District Judge, Pandharpur. The Learned District Judge has considered the record including the document dated 8th November, 2004. It is noted that the petitioner is challenging the validity of the two agreements to sale as well as the the agreement dated 8th November, 2004 whereby the possession of the land in question is accepted to be with the respondents and based on this observation, the aforesaid two appeals came to be dismissed by order dated 5th March, 2010 by the learned District Judge-1 Pandharpur. 2. I have heard the leaned advocates on both the sides. 3. In my view, the learned Civil Judge, before whom the suit was filed and an applications were made for injunction has rightly passed the orders which were impugned in the aforesaid Miscellaneous Civil Appeals. The learned District Judge-1 Pandharpur has also rightly considered the factual aspects and in particular the factum of possession and has rejected the appeals. No interference is required in the order dated 5th May, 2010 4. The Court is informed that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have examined three 3 wp2184-11 witnesses. The learned advocate for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 states that the respondents may be examining one or two more witnesses. This goes to show that the suit is in progress. The impugned order passed on 5th August, 2010 and more than one and half year has lapsed. Therefore, the petition is disposed of by passing the following order. i. The petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. ii. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pandharpur before whom the Suit is pending shall hear and dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. iii. It is clarified that while deciding the main suit, the learned civil Judge, Pandharpur shall not consider the observation made by him/District Judge or this Court and and he shall dispose of the suit on merits of the matter. (R. Y. GANOO, J.)