1 W.P.3428.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3428 OF 2010 Sunil Namdeo Mali and others ... PETITIONERS V E R S U S Uttam Bankatrao Jadhav and others ... RESPONDENTS ... Mr.J.M.Murkute,Advocate for Petitioners. Mr.S.G.Jadhavar,Advocate for respondent No.1. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 28TH APRIL, 2010 PER COURT 1] Heard learned counsel. 2] The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he does not want to press the prayer regarding challenge to the injunction order, because petitioners have filed separate petition before the learned District Judge, challenging the said order of prohibitory injunction. Thus, the challenge only remains to the extent of order passed on application ( Exh.33 ) in the suit (R.C.S.No.106 of 2009). It appears that the original defendant No.9 i.e. State of Maharashtra through Collector was joined as party to the suit. 2 W.P.3428.10 However, now no relief is sought against the defendant No.9 State, in view of the fact that the prayer clause No.2 shown in the plaint can not be considered by the trial court, as per order dated 29th June 2009. 3] Once the trial Court found that direction can not be given to the Collector to mutate entries as sought by the plaintiff-respondent No.1, it goes without saying that presence of defendant No.9- State is not necessary. The trial Court should have, therefore, returned the plaint for presentation before the appropriate Court i. e. Court of Civil Judge Junior Division at Washi, District Osmanabad. 4] Hence, petition is partly allowed. The impugned order passed below (Exh.33) is set aside with direction to return the plaint for presentation before proper Forum. 5] The Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- ( V.R.KINGAONKAR ) JUDGE MTK/ 3 W.P.3428.10