WP 10832/10 1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10832 OF 2010 ( Chandusing s/o. Narayansing Gautam & Anr. Vs. Suryabhan s/o. Laxman Borkar ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr. S.B. Chavan, Advocate for petitioners. Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 24th February, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard Advocate Shri. Chavan for the petitioners, Advocate Smt. Kulkarni for respondent. 2. By placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India Vs. B.A. Agricultural Industries (I) reported in AIR 2009 SC 2210 learned counsel for petitioners states that the issue of limitation goes to the root of the matter and here mutation entries in existence have been altered on an application moved almost after 21 years. He has also invited attention to reasons given by Additional Commissioner in impugned order to urge that the power of attorney executed by vendor could not be pointed out to the Additional Commissioner. 3. Learned counsel for respondent points out that the relevant mutation entry was taken almost 20 years after the WP 10832/10 2 alleged sale deed and without any notice to respondent. The civil suit filed by petitioners is already pending and hence, all questions can be sorted out therein. It is further urged that what is shown to this Court is a photostat copy of alleged power of attorney and same cannot be relied upon for any purpose whatsoever. 4. As the civil suit concerning the very same property is pending, it is apparent that orders passed by revenue authorities cannot be binding on the Civil Court and that Court has to independently evaluate the material produced before it. The revenue entries are only for the fiscal purposes and no prejudice is caused to the petitioner. None of his rights are violated. The judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, therefore, is not relevant at this stage. 5. I am therefore not inclined to interfere in the matter. Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. [ B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. ] ssc/wp10832.10