ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. W.P.(C) No. 4339 of 2004 was filed on 18.8.2004 by the petitioners, namely; 1. Jagjit Singh Mann and 2. Manjeet Mann seeking a direction upon respondent No. 2, Officer Incharge, Jugsalai Police Station, Jamshedpur to hand over the three keys to them which were taken by the Officer Incharge from them without any rhyme and reason. Although in the writ petition nothing has been said about the transfer made by the petitioners in favour of Ratan Chand Jain and Navin Jain, who are the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 4766 of 2004 but in the complaint made by the Officer Incharge it was alleged that the sale-deed was registered in favour of Ratan Chand Jain and another on a consideration of Rs. 12,50,000/- but the consideration amount was not paid because the four cheques which were issued towards consideration were dishonoured as per the instructions of the purchasers, namely, 1. Ratan Chand Jain and 2. Navin Jain. In the said complaint, it was also alleged that delivery of possession was not given to the purchasers. 3. In W.P.(C). No. 4766 of 2004, the admitted case of the petitioners, who are the purchasers is that the property in question was transferred by Jagjit Singh Mann and another in their favour by virtue of registered sale-deed dated 13.11.03 on payment of the consideration amount by way of four cheques but after the registration of sale-deed the petitioners-purchasers came to know that the property was mortgaged to Bihar State Financial Corporation and, therefore, they sent instructions to the Bank not to honour the cheques in favour of the vendors. 4. Mr. S.L. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners purchasers in W.P. (C) No. 4766 of 2004, admitted that the cheques are still lying with the petitioners-purchasers. 5. It is rather surprising that no complaint was made by the purchasers-Ratan Chand Jain and another about the keys which was allegedly taken by the Officer Incharge from their possession but it was only when a show-cause was issued to the Officer Incharge by this Court then these petitioners-purchasers filed the instant writ petition only on 9.9.2004 making but a case that the keys of the building was taken by the Officer Incharge from their possession. 6. 6. In the meantime, the vendor Jagjit Singh Mann and another filed a suit being Title Suit No. 16 of 2004 for cancellation of sale-deed. 7. It is also relevant to mention here that there was some disputes with regard to the possession of the keys of the building which was taken by the Officer Incharge of the Police Station and against which the vendors moved before the Sub-divisional Magistrate for a direction to hand over the keys which have been illegally taken away by the Officer Incharge and in that proceeding a direction was issued to the Officer Incharge of take appropriate step in the mater of handing over the keys. 8. From the aforesaid facts, the following relevant points emerge for consideration : (1) Although a sale-deed has been executed and registered by Jagjit Singh Mann and another in favour of Ratan Chand Jain and another on payment of consideration amount but the same has not been actually received and paid to the vendors. (2) The suit for cancellation of sale-deed has already been filed by the vendors which is pending before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. (3) There has been some disputes regarding the delivery of possession of the property in favour of the purchasers. 9. In the background of these admitted facts, I am of the view that since the transfer of property by the vendors to the purchasers, is in dispute, it is the vendors who are entitled to retain possession of the building. I, therefore, dispose of these two writ petitions by passing the following orders : (1) The suit filed by the vendors for cancellation of sale-deed shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. (2) If the suit is decreed in favour of the vendors then the question of taking possession of the property by the purchasers does not arise. (2) If the suit is decreed in favour of the vendors then the question of taking possession of the property by the purchasers does not arise. However, if the suit is dismissed and the Court holds that by virtue of the sale-deed suit property has already been transferred in favour of the purchasers then the Court shall also pass a decree for delivery of possession of the property to the purchasers on the deposit of entire consideration amount together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. (3) Officer Incharge shall hand over the keys to the vendors, namely, 1, Jagjit Singh Mann and 2. Manjeet Mann. Let a copy of this order be handed over to Mr. Manjul Prasad, learned S.C. (L&C).