1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5363 OF 2009 (Sumanbai V. Gawande & Anr. vs. Ramji N. Gawande) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. JANUARY 25, 2010. Heard Shri Chopde, learned counsel for the petitioners. This Court has on 10.12.2009 issued notice for final disposal. The respondent is served but he has chosen not to appear. Shri Chopde, learned counsel states that the respondent, who is defendant in Regular Civil Suit No. 11 of 2009 has also chosen not to appear in that Civil Suit. The challenge is to the order dated 06.10.2009 passed below Exh. 1 by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Barshitakli, holding that as it has no jurisdiction to decide the validity or otherwise of the sale deed in favour of present petitioner, the matter needs to be referred to Tahsildar. The said sale deed is of the year 1992 and the husband of the petitioner – plaintiff had purchased it. It appears that present respondent filed Regular Civil Suit No. 12 of 2000 against the present petitioner for protection of his alleged possession but 2 lost it right up to this Court. This Court dismissed his Second Appeal No. 656 of 2006 on 02.07.2008. Because of some observations made, while dismissing Second Appeal, the learned trial Court found that question of sanction or permission of the Collector under the provisions of Section 57 of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were relevant and it has passed the impugned order. According to Shri Chopde, learned counsel, such question was not raised by anybody and did not fall for consideration. He has invited attention to relevant papers to substantiate his stand. The perusal of judgment of this Court in Second Appeal shows that there, reference to provisions of Section 57 of the Act was made only to note that sale deed in contravention thereof would be invalid and no such grievance was made by the present respondent in that matter. This Court further found that the said respondent cannot be said to be a person interested as he could not prove his relationship with Namdeo. It is, therefore, obvious that these observations have been made to find fault with the case of the respondent and the same do not in any way conclude the controversy. The perusal of impugned order shows that nobody had raised dispute about validity or invalidity of sale deed in favour of husband of the petitioner and hence the impugned order is totally misconceived. 3 Reliance in it on the observations of this Court in Second Appeal is also erroneous. The order is, therefore, quashed and set aside. The proceedings in Regular Civil Suit No. 11 of 2009 to continue further in accordance with law. Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.