1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4123/2011 (JAGDISH N. SHARMA & OTHERS VERSUS MOHAN D. NACHANKAR) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Anjan De, counsel for the petitioners. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : AUGUST 26, 2011 . By this petition, the petitioners impugn an order passed by the trial Court on 02.07.2011 rejecting an application filed by the petitioners for staying the suit. It is the case of the petitioners that proceedings were filed by the petitioners under the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, 1906 that the petitioners had a customary right of way through the field of the respondent. When the matter was pending before the Mamlatdar, a civil suit was filed by the respondent for a declaration that the petitioners did not have a right of way through the field of the respondent and the petitioners may be permanently restrained from entering the field of the respondent. In the civil suit, an application was filed by the petitioners for grant of stay as according to the petitioners, the matter between the same parties in regard to the same issue, was pending before the Mamlatdar. The trial Court, however, by the impugned order dated 02.07.2011, dismissed the application. 2 The order passed by the trial Court on 02.07.2011 appears to be just and proper. It is necessary to note that the civil suit is a substantive proceedings filed by the parties and the proceedings before the Mamlatdar are summary proceedings. Moreover, the orders passed under the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, 1906 are not final and can be interfered with, in a civil suit. It would be necessary to refer to the provisions of Section 22 of the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, 1906 in this regard. Since the order passed by the trial Court rejecting an application for stay does not suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional error, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE