-: 1 :- wp-1582/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1582 OF 2011. Sanjay Alu Figer. ..Petitioner. Versus Janubai @ Jankubai Motya Dibrit & Ors. ..Respondents. A. G. Kundekar for the petitioner. Mr. R. M. Patne, AGP for R-13 & 14. Coram : RANJIT V. MORE, J. Date : March 7, 2011. P. C. : 1. The writ petition arises out of proceeding under section 5 of the Mamlatdar’s Act, 1906. Respondent nos.1 to 10 filed proceeding under section 5 before the Mamlatdar against the petitioner and respondent nos. 11 and 12 for removal of obstruction in the suit way and consequential injunction restraining the petitioner and respondent nos. 11 and 12 from obstructing respondent nos. 1 to 10 from using the suit road. The Mamaltdar after hearing the concerned parties, allowed respondent nos.1 to 10’s application and the petitioner and respondent nos.11 and 12 were injuncted from obstructing the suit way. This order is confirmed by the SDO in a revision under section 23(2) of the said Act. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Mamlatdar has no jurisdiction to entertain the application of srp -: 2 :- wp-1582/11 respondent nos.1 to 10. He submitted that the Mamlatdar by his order, for the first time declared that the road was in existence. In my view, the submission is devoid of any merit. I have seen the application preferred by respondent nos. 1 to 10. It was the case of these respondents that they were using the said road for many years and for the first time the petitioner and respondent nos. 11 and 12 obstructed the same in the month of July 1996. The learned Mamlatdar has also concluded in his order that the suit road was in existence since long time and same was obstructed by the petitioner and respondent nos. 11 and 12. 3. Be that as it may, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the fact that the petitioner had filed civil suit against respondent nos. 1 to 10 for injunction restraining them from using the suit road. The suit was dismissed and even the first appeal preferred by the petitoiner before the lower appellate Court was also dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that second appeal is filed in this Court and same is pending, however, no interim orders are passed in the said second appeal. 4. Taking overall view of the circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. (RANJIT V. MORE, J.)