IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 202 OF 2006 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 202 OF 2006 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 202 OF 2006 Jagannath Naghu Ambekar & Anr. ... Petitioners Versus Kisan Ramchandra Vare ... Respondent Mr. R.D.Soni, Advocate, i/b. M/s. Ram & Co., Advocates for the petitioners. Mr. V.G.Mujumdar, Advocate, for the respondent. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 29th April,2008. DATE: 29th April,2008. DATE: 29th April,2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The plaintiff-respondent claims to be the owner of the suit land Gat no.249B admeasuring 6 hectares and 42 Ares situate at Maugi Vadaki, Taluka Haveli, District Pune. He also sought perpetual injunction restraining the defendants-applicants from disturbing his possession over this land. 2. The defendant filed application Exhibit 21 under Section 9A of the C.P.c. contending that the suit land belongs to the defendants on the basis of the sale deed dated 12.11.1934 about which mutation entry was taken. It was contended that mistake was committed at the time of consolidation of the land in showing the said land as belonging to the plaintiff. With these allegations, it was contended that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide the suit in view of Section 36-A of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation And Consolidation of Holdings Act 1947 (for short, "Consolidation Act"). In support of this, reliance was placed on Yeshwant Ramchandra Dhumal deceased by L.Rs. Yeshwant Ramchandra Dhumal deceased by L.Rs. Yeshwant Ramchandra Dhumal deceased by L.Rs. vs. Shri shankar Maruti Dhumal and another AIR 2001 vs. Shri shankar Maruti Dhumal and another AIR 2001 vs. Shri shankar Maruti Dhumal and another AIR 2001 Bombay 384 Bombay 384 Bombay 384 as well as Shri Narayan S. Bite and Ors. Shri Narayan S. Bite and Ors. Shri Narayan S. Bite and Ors. vs. Shri Mahadeo Shripati Pise and Ors. 2001 (3) vs. Shri Mahadeo Shripati Pise and Ors. 2001 (3) vs. Shri Mahadeo Shripati Pise and Ors. 2001 (3) Bom.C.R.262 Bom.C.R.262 Bom.C.R.262. However, the learned trial Court rejected the contention of the defendants and held that if the defendants are aggrieved by the decision of the Competent Authority under the Consolidation Act, they can challenge the same, but Section 36A does not take away the jurisdiction of the Civil Court when the suit is filed for declaration of title and for perpetual injunction. With these observations, the trial Court rejected the contention of the defendants that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 3. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and perusal of the impugned order and the pleadings of the parties, I find no illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned order. The Revision Application stands dismissed summarily. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)