1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 238 OF 2007 Sanjay s/o. Gaba Patil, R/o. Talave, Tal. Taloda, Dist. Nandurbar. ....Applicant. Versus 1. Miss. Sharaddha d/o. Sanjay Patil, R/o. C/o. Ramchandra Dashrath Patil, At Post Prakasha, Tal. Shahada, Dist. Nandurbar. 2. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Taloda, Division Taloda, Dist. Nandurbar. 3. The Tahsildar, Taloda, Tal. Taloda, Dist. Nandurbar. ....Respondents. Mr. A.R. Kale h/f. Mr. S.V. Natu, Advocate for applicant. Mr. C.R. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Mr. S.K. Kadam, AGP for respondent No. 2 and 3. CORAM: R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATED: 30th November, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties. Admit. By consent of parties, the matter is heard finally. Shri. C.R. Deshpande, the learned counsel and Shri. S.K. Kadam, the learned A.G.P. waive service of notice for the respective respondents. 2 2. This civil revision application challenges the order dated 25.10.2005, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Taloda , dismissing the revision application filed by the present applicant, challenging the order dated 19.4.2005, passed by the Tahsildar, Taloda under section 5 of the Mamletdar Courts Act. The learned counsel for the applicant has urged that this order was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on the application dated 8.8.2005, moved by the applicant for grant of stay till the decision of the suit and for the adjournment of the matter. The learned counsel has urged that there was no occasion for the Sub- Divisional Officer to decide the matter on merits, holding that since Regular Civil Suit No. 06/05 was filed on 9.5.2005 by the present applicant, nothing is required to be adjudicated in this appeal. 3. Shri. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has raised a preliminary objection in respect of maintainability of the application. He states that the Sub-Divisional Officer has passed the order impugned in this civil revision application, in exercise of his revisional powers conferred by section 23 of the Mamletdar's Courts Act and hence, entertaining this civil revision application amounts to preferring revision against the order of revision. Hence, the revision application is liable to be dismissed on this sole ground. Shri. Deshpande has further contended that nothing survived in the appeal preferred by the applicant before the Sub-Divisional Officer in view of the civil suit which the applicant has preferred and therefore, the 3 Sub-Divisional Officer was right in dismissing the appeal itself. 4. So far as the preliminary objection in respect of maintainability of the civil revision application is concerned, this issue seems to have been raised on 6.9.2007 before this Court. This Court after considering the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court delivered in Writ Petition No. 4138/2006 has held that since there is a statutory remedy of revision available under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, the writ petition is required to be converted into civil revision application. This order has attended the finality. Neither any application for recall of this order is filed nor any appeal is preferred against it. In view of this, the preliminary objection raised by Shri. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the respondent No 1, about maintainability of civil revision application does not survive. 5. So far as the merits of the matters are concerned, it is not disputed that the respondent had filed an application for stay to the proceedings of appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer. There was no application for dismissal of appeal. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer could not have taken the parties to surprise to deal with the matter finally on the application for grant of stay. If at all, the respondents are of the opinion that nothing survives in the appeal pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer as the Regular Civil Suit No. 06/05 was filed, then the proper course was to file such an application, so as to provide an opportunity to 4 the other side to meet the contention. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer, therefore, has committed an error in dismissing the appeal. The order suffers from the breach of the principles of natural justice and the procedure required for hearing and disposal of the statutory appeal. 6. In the result, the order dated 25.1.2005, passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer Taloda, dismissing appeal No. 22/2005 is quashed and set aside. There shall be no orders as to costs. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J.] ssc/cra238.07