1 WP NO.3902/2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 19. WP/3902/2011 SANTOSH LAHANU WAGHMODE [Civil] V/S MANOHAR BHAURAO WAGHMODE AND ORS ------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. N.C.Garud, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr. V.H.Dighe, AGP for the respondent State. Mr. A.B.Gatne, Adv., for respondent Nos. 4 to 12. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:NOVEMBER 11th, 2011 1. Heard finally. 2. The petitioner questions propriety and legality of the order in RTS/Wahiwat/Case No.2/2003 dt.31st March, 2003 and the final order in revision No.281/2010, dt.9th July, 2010 of the Revisional authority. 3. The respondent No.1 Manohar is uncle of petitioner Santosh (original defendant in RTS Case No.2/2003, which was pending before the learned Mamlatdar/Tehsildar under the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906. 2 WP NO.3902/2011 4. Mr.Garud, learned Counsel, submits that the action of the respondents and others in seeking access is betraying provisions of Section 5(3) of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, as the law contemplates existence of cause of action to be six months from the date of such obstruction and, according to him, the pleadings of respondent addressed that since one year there was obstruction. 5. The principle to construe the pleadings is that, they are to be read as a whole and need not be extracted in isolation to draw a particular meaning from a line. Para Nos. 4 and 5 of the plaint, indeed, inform in unequivocal terms that though since one year the defendant therein has started creating obstruction by putting thorny bushes, however, on 1st March, 2003, the defendant no.1 in the said proceedings refused to remove the obstruction - thorny bushes and asked the plaintiff therein to follow legal recourse and, hence, cause of action accrued. 3 WP NO.3902/2011 6. Reading the above version in the plaint, the objection as raised in the writ petition does not sustain. 7. The judgment of the authorities, deals with Panchnama drawn at the spot. Statement of the witnesses are recorded and there is inspection report. Consequently, I do not see any error in the authority directing the petitioner to make available the road, which was in user of the respondent. Writ Petition lacks merit, dismissed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... AGP/3902-11wp