33-WP-11781-2026.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11781 OF 2026 Dattatray Maruti Girmkar & anr. ..Petitioners Versus Abhijit Sudarshan Pansare & Ors. …Respondents Mr. Bhalchandra Shinde, for the Petitioners. CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 29th SEPTEMBER 2026 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 14th July, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Indapur whereby an application preferred by the petitioners/defendants to impound the earnest note purportedly executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs, came to be rejected. 3. Mr. Shinde, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that though there is no stipulation in the earnest note as to the delivery of possession or the promise to deliver possession at the time of the execution of conveyance, yet, the earnest note was required to be impounded under the provisions SAINATH, PA 1/2 SAINATH SANJAY BODKHE Digitally signed by SAINATH SANJAY BODKHE Date: 2026.10.01 17:51:55 +0530 33-WP-11781-2026.DOC of Section 33 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 (“the Act, 1958”). 4. The learned Civil Judge was of the view that, the provisions contained in Explanation I to Article 25 of Schedule I of the Act, 1958 were not attracted as there was no stipulation regarding the delivery of possession. 5. The view of the learned Civil Judge appears to be correct. 6. I have perused the earnest note. There is no stipulation regarding the delivery of possession of the subject premises in presenti or at the time of the conveyance. The essential ingredient of the Explanation I to Article 25 as to the delivery of possession, namely, that the possession of the immovable property is transferred or agreed to be transferred to the purchaser before the execution, or at the time of execution, or after the execution of the agreement, does not seem to have been borne out by the earnest note in question. 7. Thus, the learned Civil Judge cannot be said to have committed any error in rejecting the application. No interference is warranted with the impugned order. 8. The Writ Petition stands dismissed. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] SAINATH, PA 2/2