Bombay High Court
SCARIA MATHEW GEEVARGHESE AND ANOTHERversusVAISHALI VISHAL MUNDALE
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The writ petition is disposed of as the observations made by the subordinate court do not amount to a final order warranting supervisory intervention under Article 227.
Summary
The petitioners, original plaintiffs in a special civil suit for specific performance of a land purchase agreement dated 22 March 2019, filed a writ petition alleging that the lower court had only made observations, not a proper order, regarding the impounding of the unregistered sale deed. They contended that the respondent's refusal to perform the contract and the lower court's failure to pass a definitive order warranted intervention under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court noted that the observations made by the Civil Judge Senior Division were not a final order and therefore did not constitute a patently perverse decision amenable to supervisory jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court directed that the petitioners may seek clarification of the observations through an application before the lower court. The writ petition was consequently disposed of without any substantive order.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to intervene when a subordinate court has only made observations and not passed a formal order.
- Whether the impounding of an unregistered sale deed without a proper order is a ground for relief in a writ petition.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 227
Subjects
- specific performance
- contract
- sale deed registration
- stamp duty
- Article 227
- supervisory jurisdiction
- writ petition
- civil suit
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:41401
1 926-WP-11369-2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
926 WRIT PETITION NO. 11369 OF 2026
Scaria Mathew Geevarghese And Another
VERSUS
Vaishali Vishal Mundale
...
Adv.J V Deshpande for the Petitioners.
...
CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.
DATE : 01.09.2026
PER COURT :
1. The Petitioners are the original plaintiffs in Special Civil Suit
No.303 of 2019, pending before the Civil Judge Senior Division,
Aurangabad. The learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that the
suit is for specific performance of contract. The agreement between the
parties, i.e., the plaintiffs and defendants is in respect of purchase of land
admeasuring 3 acres, 20 R from Gut No.28 admeasuring 1 hector 62 R
situated at village Sahajapur, Taluka and District Aurangabad.
2. The agreement is entered between the parties on 22 nd March,
2019 and signed by the parties before the notary in presence of
witnesses. Since the Respondent has failed to perform his part of the
contract as agreed, the Petitioners called upon the Respondent to perform
his part of the contract. However, the Respondent has refused, which
resulted in filing of special civil suit, during the pendency of the special
Sunny Thote
2 926-WP-11369-2026.odt
civil suit, the Petitioner No.1 filed his evidence affidavit on 21 st August,
2023. The Respondent has filed an affidavit below Exhibit-35 for
impounding of the agreement of sale dated 22nd March, 2019. Though the
Petitioners have filed say at Exhibit-36, praying to reject the application
of the Respondent and the Respondent has also not pressed the said
application below Exhibit-35. Inspite of that, the learned Judge has made
certain observations while recording the evidence of the plaintiff, by
observing that, the documents relied by the plaintiff to claim that they
have already received possession, is required to be a registered
document, with payment of appropriate stamp duty, since the document
is not registered, the same is impounded.
3. It is submitted that no separate order has been passed by the
learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Aurangabad on 26 th November,
2025, only certain observations are made while recording the evidence of
plaintiff. Upon pointing being confronted with the fact that only
observations are made and no order is passed, which can be assailed by
the Petitioners. The learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that, this
Court may exercise its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India for passing an appropriate order. This Court can exercise its power
of Superintendent under Article 227 only when there is any order passed
by the Sub-ordinate Courts or Authorities, which is patently perverse.
4. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the present case, the Petitioners are at liberty to file an application
Sunny Thote
3 926-WP-11369-2026.odt
seeking clarification of the observations made while recording the
evidence of Petitioner No.1. The said application shall be considered
appropriately by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad.
5. In the above said observations, the Writ Petition stand
disposed off.
[ MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. ]
Sunny Thote
Checking your session…