1 WP 6017.2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6017 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr. N.K.Choudhari, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. R.P.Phatake, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for State. Mr. K.F.Shingare, Advocate for Resp.No. 4. ............................... CORAM :S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE :24/08/2011 PER COURT : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. The present petitioner had filed an application U/s 5 of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, which came to be allowed. Aggrieved thereby the present respondent no. 4 preferred Revision before the Additional Collector, Aurangabad. The Additional Collector, Aurangabad vide its order dated 8/8/2011 passed an order of status-quo. Aggrieved thereby the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order has been erroneously passed. Though the caveat 2 WP 6017.2011 was filed by the petitioner, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. The Additional Collector, Aurangabad erroneously relied on the Judgment of this court in the case of Shrichand Vishanadas Raheja, Asha Shrichand Raheja and another V/s Purshottam Vishandas Raheja reported in 2011 ( 4 ) MLJ – 230. According to the learned counsel, even the merits of the matter were not considered by the authority while granting the status-quo. As such, the order deserves to be set aside. 4. Mr. Shingare, the learned counsel for respondent no. 4 submits that on the very next day, the order passed by the Tahsildar was to be executed. There was urgency in the matter. So, the Additional Collector had passed the said order and even the caveat was not in a proper form. 5. The Judgment in the case of Shrichand Raheja referred supra relied by the Additional Collector was certainly not applicable to these proceedings. The said Judgment was on the basis of the Bombay High Court ( original side ) Rules, 1980 and not on the basis of the provisions of Section 148-A read with Order 40-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Additional Collector should have accepted the said caveat and the presence of the Advocate pursuant to the said caveat. The Additional Collector has committed an error in not considering the same. 3 WP 6017.2011 6. Even the Order granting status-quo does not give any reasons. The said order seems to have been passed in a very casual manner. However, taking into account the fact that the hearing is scheduled on 5/9/2011, I am not interfering with the said order of status-quo. 7. The Additional Collector, Aurangabad, before whom the said Appeal is pending, shall decide the stay application on 5/9/2011 after hearing the parties or their learned counsels on the said date on its own merits. 8. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with aforesaid directions. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] KNP/WP 6017.2011