1 wp1137.sxw ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1137 OF 2010 Tayavva Bhimsha Bansode & Ors. ...Petitioners vs. Gurappa Shivappa Korvi & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.P.R.Arjunwadkar for the petitioners Mr.R.S.Alange for the respondent no.1 to 11, 15 and 16 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE :DECEMBER 8,2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. He seeks permission to delete the name of the respondent no. 17. Permission is granted at the risk of the petitioners. Other contesting respondents are served. 2 The learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 11 and 15 and 16 states that instead of keeping the petition pending in this Court, the matter may be remitted to Tahsildar as the case of the petitioners is that they were not heard by the Tahsildar. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the proceedings before the Tahsildar under the Mamlatdar s Court Act,1906 was not maintainable. The suggestion made by the learned counsel for the contesting respondents is reasonable. The petitioners can always raise the issue of maintainability and jurisdiction before the Tahsildar. 3 Hence, I pass the following order : 2 wp1137.sxw i) Impugned Judgments and Orders are quashed and set aside and the application/proceedings filed by the contesting respondents before the Tahsildar under the Mamlatdar Court Act,1906 is restored to the file of the Tahsildar. ii)The Tahsildar will grant reasonable time to the Petitioners to file a reply to the said application. iii)After giving an opportunity of being heard to both the parties, the Tahsildar will decide the proceedings finally as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from today. iv)All contentions of the parties including the contention of the Petitioners regarding maintainability of the proceedings are kept open. v) Rule is partly made absolute in above terms. There will be no order as to costs. JUDGE