IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3608 OF 2008 Parmeshwar Dahare & anor ..vs.. Istari Kurjekar & ors ================================== CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE:20.10.2008 Heard Advocate Kotwal for petitioner and learned A.P.P. for respondents no.4 to 8. During the arguments Advocate Kotwal states that challenging the impugned order, a revision under section 35 of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act was sought to be filed before office of Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and the said office has not accepted the revision. Therefore, present writ petition has been filed. Learned A.G.P. points out that there is no such statement made in the writ petition and he further states that even if revision is prsumed to be not maintainable there is no reason for office of the Divisional Commissioner to refuse filing. In these circumstances I find that interest of justice can be met with by permitting the petitioner to file appropriate revision before the Divisional Commissioner. In view of the said remedy, writ petition is disposed of with no cost. JUDGE smp.