953.5461.2024.wp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 953 WRIT PETITION NO. 5461 OF 2024 Pradeep Bhagwanprasad Dube Versus Omprakash Kisanrao Wadgaonkar ... Mr. V. V. Bhavthankar, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. S. S. Jadhavar, Advocate for Respondent (sole) ... CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATE : JULY 16, 2025 O R D E R : 1. The petitioner is plaintiff in R.C.S. No. 218/2018, which is filed for specific performance of contract. The agreement in question is dated 12.11.2018. The alleged agreement is typed on a non- judicial stamp of Rs. 100/-. The petitioner has filed an application vide ‘Exhibit 32’, inter alia praying the learned Trial Court to impound the said agreement. The learned Trial Court has observed that there is no statement in the agreement regarding the said possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. The learned Trial Court has held and there is nothing to interfere with the stamp duty paid on the document is inadequate. 2. In view of the above reasons the Trial Court has rejected the application. Mr. Bhavthankar, learned advocate for the petitioner states that although it is not so mentioned in the agreement, the petitioner is in possession of the suit property. He claims possession on the basis of agreement. komal kamble page 1 of 2 2025:BHC-AUG:18700 953.5461.2024.wp 3. However, it is not necessary to determine whether the petitioner-plaintiff is in possession of the suit property for the purpose of the present petition, inasmuch as it is well settled that a document can be considered to be a conveyance under Article 25 in the Schedule appended to the Maharashtra Stamp Act, if there is a covenant regarding delivery of possession in the agreement itself. The learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the application. The order impugned does not warrant any interference, and the petition is, therefore, dismissed. [ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.] komal kamble page 2 of 2