1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6537 OF 2008 Parmeshwar S/o.Sukhdeo Ghatul and another PETITIONERS VERSUS Bhagwan S/o.Dagadu Sable RESPONDENT Mr.N.P.Banger, advocate for petitioners Mr.K.B.Jadhavar, advocate for sole respondent (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 12/06/2009 PER COURT : 1. By the present petition under Article 227 of The Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order passed dated 01/09/2008 by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad, Division Aurangabad in ROR/REV/PT/146/2006 in the matter of caveat filed by the petitioners herein. 2. Considering the arguments across the bar by Adv.Banger for petitioners followed by the arguments of Adv.Jadhavar for the respondents, and the factual matrix which gave rise to the present petition shows that the respondent who is the revisional petitioner in above referred revision petition ROR/REV/PT/146/2006 filed in the 2 Court of Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad, Division Aurangabad being aggrieved against the decision dated 09/06/2008 in case no. 2008/CD/Appeal/31, passed by the Additional Collector, Beed. After this order came to be passed, the petitioners claimed that they have filed caveat in the Court of Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad on 19/06/2008 numbered as Caveat Application No.91/2008. Inspite of this caveat application, on 21/07/2008 an interim order of status- quo was passed by the Learned Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad in the said revision petition without notice to the present petitioners. The returnable date was 26/08/2008 as the status-quo order was passed till 26/08/2008. It appears that on 26/08/2008, advocate for petitioner appeared before the Learned Additional Commissioner Aurangabad and moved an application first to oppose the grant of status-quo and to vacate the status-quo order already passed on 21/07/2008. It further appears that when the learned Additional Commissioner shown her willingness to hear the application whether the status-quo to be continued or not, advocate for present petitioners insisted upon for the hearing on his application as to why status-quo order was passed inspite of caveat was lodged by the petitioner. As this opportunity was not availed by the petitioner, the order under challenge came to be passed. 3. During the course of arguments across the bar, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners drawn my attention towards Section 148(3) of The CPC. He has also placed his reliance on the rul ing reported in AIR 1983 Andhra Pradesh 443, in the matter of C. 3 Seethaiah versus Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and others, wherein it is held that when the caveat is filed u/s.148-A, the notice of the petition presented in the Court of Law wherein interim relief is asked for, then without giving notice to the caveator if any order is passed, that order is illegal and nullity in the eye of Law. According to him, bearing in mind the ratio as laid down in this judgment, inspite of his caveat application, an interim order was passed by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad, which is illegal and nullity in the eye of Law. Hence that order to be vacated and the present writ petition to be allowed. It is his next submission that the order was also not passed on merit as the name is appearing in the 7/12 extract alongwith the name of the respondent. As according to learned advocate appearing for the petitioner that these observations of the Learned Additional Commissioner are not as per the record as his name is not appeared for the disputed land, but appeared in some other land. 2. While opposing these submissions, learned advocate appearing for the respondent drawn my attention towards the Bombay Amendment to Order XL-A where the caveat rules are framed. He drawn my attention towards Rule 7 of these caveat rule of Order XL- A, wherein there is specific provision laid down as under. “Rule 7 : Whether it appears to the Court that the object of granting ad interim relief on the application would be defeated by delay, it may record reasons for such opinion and grant ad interim relief on the application, and the application till further 4 orders giving the caveat opportunity of being heard.” 3. Considering this amendment, by way of introducing Order XL- A to The CPC by the High Court Amendment of Bombay will applicable to the proceedings covered under the judicature of the jurisdiction of High Court of Bomby. No doubt, the rule given by the Full Bench of The Andhra Pradesh High Court is binding on this Court also, but considering that there is a State Amendment i.e. amendment of High Court of Bombay, and the amended order is inserted in the CPC, which is a central legislation, then the amendment of our own High Court is binding on us against the rule given by the High Courts for the other States. 4. For the discussion made in the above paragraph supra, one fact is clear that in deserving exceptional cases, the Court is empowered to pass an ex-parte order in absence of notice to the caveator, which discretion was exercised by the Learned Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad as inspite of caveat even though order of status-quo was passed by the Learned Additional Commissioner, it was not vacate order, but it was an order for a limited period of one month five days. Thus, I do not find any fault with the Learned Additional Commissioner in passing the interim order for a limited period inspite of caveat. 5. By virtue of Sub Rule 7 to the newly introduced Order XL-A of CPC, as the order was for the limited period, whether the Learned 5 Additional Commissioner was justified in passing the order dated 01/09/2008, which fact can be considered from the contents of the order itself, as it is a matter of record and not under dispute. As the order was for limited period till 26/08/2008, the Learned Additional Commissioner had given an opportunity to the present petitioners to make the submissions on the point whether the order of status-quo to be continued or the order of status-quo to be vacated. It is observed at internal page 3 of the order under challenge that inspite of this opportunity was given to the petitioners, petitioners are not ready to avail this opportunity, but bent upon to hear his objection about ad interim order passed in respect of caveat and shown his unwillingness to make the submissions on the point whether the staqus-quo order to be continued or the status-quo order to be vacated. Thus inspite of an opportunity was given to the petitioners to make the submissions on the point of continuation/ dis- continuation of the status-quo order petitioners themselves have not availed that opportunity, then the Additional Commissioner can not be faulted for non co-operation on the part of the petitioners. Thus in the light of all these facts as well as the legal points discussed in the above paragraphs supra, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition, which required to be dismissed in limine. 6. Hence the writ petition stands dismissed as it is devoid of any merit. It is clarified that as the present writ petition is not decided on merit about the case of the respective parties, but decided only on the Law point, hence while deciding the pending revision petition 6 before the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad, the learned Additional Commissioner need not influence by the observations of this Court and to dispose of the pending revision petition as the earliest, so far as within the period of 6 months. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/wp6537-08