1 S.A. 715.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL No.715 OF 2010 Laxman S/o Ganpat Khandagale & another .. APPELLANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, A’bad & others ...RESPONDENTS ... Shri M.K. Deshpande, Advocate for the appellants Smt. R.K. Ladda, A.G.P. for the state CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 29th November, 2010. PER COURT : This is plaintiff’s Second appeal. The plaintiff had filed a suit for injunction restraining the respondents /State from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff preferred an appeal. The appellate Court also dismissed the appeal. The plaintiffs have assailed the said Judgment in the Second Appeal. 2 S.A. 715.2010 2. Shri Deshpande, learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the Courts have held that plaintiff is in possession of the property. The plaintiff had an eminent apprehension that the respondent/State would dispossess the plaintiff, as such the approached the Civil Court Section 11 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act(here-in-after referred be as”said Act”) would not come in the way for the Civil Court to entertain the present dispute. The learned Counsel further submitted that dehors the provisions of the said Act, the Civil Court can still exercise its jurisdiction. As under the said Act the plaintiff would not be entitled for the relief which is claimed in the present suit. 3. With the assistance of learned Counsel for the respective parties I have gone through the judgments passed by both the Courts below. 4. The plaintiff is claiming himself to be encroacher and has moved the authorities concerned for regularisaton of the encroachment. The appeal under section 11 of the Bombay Revenue 3 S.A. 715.2010 Jurisdiction Act is subjudiced before the competent authority and the same is pending before both the Courts, relying upon the said provision the Courts below have dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. 5. Perusal of the said Act, it is manifest that Section 4 bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suits against the Government Section 4 of the said Act, also mandates that the Civil Court shall not entertain the suits against the Government on account of any act or omission of any revenue officer unless the plaintiff first proves that he has presented the appeal under the Act. Section 5 is a saving clause which lays down some categories of suits which can be entertained by the Civil Court. Shri Deshpande relies on clause (b) of Section 5 to contend that the Civil court can entertain the suit. Clause (b) can be invoked only if the suit is in between private parties for the purpose of establishing any private right. The present suit is solely against the State / Government. As such, clause 5(b) would be no assistance to the 4 S.A. 715.2010 plaintiff. 6. Admittedly, the appeal is pending under Section 11 of the said Act. The present suit would be premature, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Civil Court, after the appeal filed by the plaintiff is adjudicated. 7. In the light of the above, the Second Appeal being sans substantial question of law, is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. In view of the disposal of the Second Appeal, the Civil Application is also disposed of. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA] JUDGE SDM* 715.10/2911.10