172mca139.10.odt 1 . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Misc. Civil Application No. 139 of 2010 in Second Appeal No.293 of 2008 (D) (Richabai w/o. Budha Bathe Korku and Ors. vs. Rampiyari w/o. Bishram Dhurve and anr.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Coram: R. K. Deshpande, J. Date : February 17,2010. MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 139 OF 2010 Heard Mr. S. J. Khandalkar, Adv. for the applicants. This is an application for restoration of the Second Appeal which was dismissed in default on 9.9.2009. Learned Counsel has urged that when the matter was called out, he was busy in another Court and hence, could not remain present. He has filed an affidavit. In view of the above, I am satisfied that a case is made out for restoration of the appeal. Hence, the order dismissing the appeal in default passed on 9.9.2009 is set aside. Second Appeal No. 293 of 2008 is restored to the file of this Court. SECOND APPEAL NO. 293 OF 2008 Heard. The appellants are the Original defendants. The trial Court has recorded a finding that in Regular Civil Suit No. 346 of 1996 all the plaintiffs have proved that the proceedings before the 172mca139.10.odt 2 . Naib-Tahsildar, Dharni in case no.RTS/64/95-96 initiated by defendant no.1 on 8.12.1995 are illegal and void. The Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No.44 of 2007 confirmed the aforesaid finding recorded by the trial Court. The Appellate Court considered the question whether there was a bar u/s. 158 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code to file a suit in respect of a claim with regard to the entry made in the revenue record. The finding is recorded by the Appellate Court that when there is apparent illegality committed by the Revenue Officer, the Civil Court has every right to take cognizance. In view of the above, following substantial question of law arises in the present Second Appeal. 1. Whether the finding recorded by the trial Court on Issue no.3, which is confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Court, is hit by bar u/s. 158 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code ? Hence, ADMIT. JUDGE jais