1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 5613 of 2009 ( Hiraman N. Dangari and others -: versus :- State of Maharashtra and others ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. A.V. Bhide, Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. T.R. Kankale, AGP for the respondent No.1, Mr. A.G. Kunte, Advocate for the respondent No.2, Mr. M.N. Motghare, Advocate for the respondent No.3. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : APRIL 6, 2010. 1. Heard. 2. Contention of Shri Bhide, learned Advocate for the petitioners is as Regular Civil Suit No. 173/94 filed by present petitioners (through his deceased father) was pending, the Sub Divisional Officer, Hinganghat passed order allowing application under Section 120(C) of Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1958 (Vidarbha Region) on 7th March, 2005. The said order is without jurisdiction. He further states that the stand was also repeated before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in revision. But as exact status of that civil suit was not known M.R.T. has not appreciated it. 3. Mr. Kunte, learned Advocate for the respondent 2 has pointed out that civil suit was dismissed on 31-7-2007 2 itself and Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has delivered judgment in revision on 16-11-2009. The dismissal was not disclosed to Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal though it was within knowledge of petitioners. He contends that effort of petitioners is only to delay the delivery of possession under Section 120 of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1958 (Vidarbha Region) proceedings. 4. Learned A.G.P. for respondent No.1 has supported the impugned order. Mr. Motghare, learned Advocate for the respondent No.3 supports the argument of Shri Bhide, learned Advocate for the petitioners. 5. The application for restoration of Regular Civil Suit No. 173/94 is filed on 10-9-2008. Thus when Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal decided the revision, fact of dismissal of civil suit was very much within the knowledge of petitioner. 6. Before this Court Shri Bhide, learned Advocate for the petitioners states that respondent No.1 can wait for reasonable time and in the mean while the proceedings in application for restoration can be decided. It is apparent that such request ought to have been made before Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal but for period of last about one and half years no such request was made by the petitioners. I am, therefore, inclined to accept that petitioners are only trying to delay the disposal of the matter. 7. No case is made out warranting any interference 3 in this writ jurisdiction. Hence, Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE adgokar