JUDGMENT : - Heard learned counsel for the parties. Considering the controversy involved in the matter, Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally be consent of parties. 2. Advocate Jetha, for petitioner plaintiff contends that in the civil suit for specific performance filed on the basis of agreement of sale, the Court has passed an order below Exh.22 on 05 - 04 - 2006 and had impounded the agreement treating it as conveyance under Article 25 of the Bombay Stamp Act. He argues that the document no where contemplated delivery of possession either at the time of execution of agreement or before execution of that agreement or after execution of that agreement. He further states that delivery of possession as contemplated is only at the time of registration and execution of the sale deed. According to him, Article 25 have been wrongly applied. 3. Advocate Khandewale, appearing for respondents, states that Article 25 has been rightly invoked and applied. He invites attention to Clause (i) of Article 25 to point out that whenever possession is agreed to be delivered by agreement, the agreement is conveyance as contemplated under Article 25 is bound to apply. He also relies upon the judgment reported as ( 2004(3) Mh.L.J. 357 : [2004(2) ALL MR 880]) Sheshrao Kale Vs. Damodar Pandhare. 4. I have perused the judgment on which reliance has been placed. Paragraph no.3 makes it clear that the possession was shown to have been delivered by the agreement for sale dated 23 - 08 - 1999. The dispute between the parties was in relation to the factual delivery of possession and the petitioner there contended that though the agreement mentioned delivery of possession, in fact such possession was not delivered. This Court had not accepted it and in view of Article 25, the document has been held to be conveyance. 5. In the facts of the present case, the agreement no where stipulates delivery of possession at any point of time prior to registration and execution of sale deed. It is therefore not a conveyance as contemplated by Article 25. Article 25(i) speaks of contingency in which the possession is agreed to be delivered, either before the execution of agreement for sale or at the time of execution of such agreement or after the execution of such agreement for sale. It is therefore not a conveyance as contemplated by Article 25. Article 25(i) speaks of contingency in which the possession is agreed to be delivered, either before the execution of agreement for sale or at the time of execution of such agreement or after the execution of such agreement for sale. In other words, it speaks of contingency in which the parties agree to deliver possession only on the strength of such agreement at any point of time before the registration and execution of the sale deed. I therefore, find that the application of mind by the court below in the impugned order is perverse. The order as passed is un - sustainable and is thus quashed and set aside. Writ Petition is allowed. 6. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs. Petition allowed.