skt/- 1 34wp.10633.09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10633 OF 2009 Abdul Aziz Abrahim Phophulnkar Through Constituted Attorney Suleman Abdul Rehman Chilwan ... Petitioner Vs. Sada G. Kale & Ors. ... Respondents ...... Ms.Gauri Godse for the petitioner. Mr.Nitin Mulye for respondents. ...... CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 29th APRIL, 2010. P.C. 1. Rule, by consent made returnable forthwith. 2. This petition is directed against the order passed by the Mamlatdar under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar Court Act, 1906 (for short, ‘the said Act’) which was maintained upon revision by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Alibag. The respondents had approached the Mamlatdar by filing an application complaining of closure of way to their field by the present petitioner. The Mamlatdar had not followed the provisions prescribed under Section 7, 8 & 9 of the said Act, skt/- 2 34wp.10633.09.sxw and had not examined the plaintiffs to elicit information which is required under Section 7 of the said Act. However, parties tendered evidence which was considered by the Mamlatdar. A Commissioner was appointed and the Commissioner’s report was also considered by the Mamlatdar. Issues has been framed by him. By his cryptic order, dated 24th January 2008, the Mamlatdar simply recorded that evidence was recorded, a Commissioner was appointed and that the matter was closed for judgment and thus, proceeded to give the operative order without any reason. He had not even referred the issues which he had framed. This order was questioned by the petitioner in revision. 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Alibag also recorded the contentions of the two parties including petitioner’s contention that the order was liable to be set aside since the provisions of Section 7 to 10 of the said Act were not complied. Again without giving any reason, by only reciting that after considering the arguments advanced and the documents including Commissioner’s report, he rejected the revision. skt/- 3 34wp.10633.09.sxw Thus, both the orders indicate total non-application of mind and do not show that the Courts had considered the issues raised. The Mamlatdar had not even if bothered to ascertain from the plaintiffs before him as to the particulars which were required to be furnished while commencing the action under Section 5 of the said Act. 4. In view of this, the impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Mamlatdar for a decision afresh on merits. 5. The petition is disposed of. All points are kept open. [ R.C.CHAVAN, J. ]