1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL No. 718 OF 2010 Sudhakar Popat Wagh .. APPELLANT VERSUS Ananda Ramkrushna choudhay ...RESPONDENT ... Shri V.B.Garud, Advocate for the appellant CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 24th November, 2010. PER COURT : This is plaintiff’s Second Appeal. The Plaintiff had filed a suit for injunction, restraining the defendant from causing obstruction, in as much as using the cart way from his land. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff preferred an appeal, the Appellate Court, dismissed the appeal, confirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court. The plaintiff has assailed the said Judgment and Decree in the present Second Appeal. 2 2. Shri Garud, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the order passed by the Tahasildar is illegal, and the same has been challenged before the appropriate forum, even the Trial Court has observed that the order suffers from illegality. According to Shri Garud, the learned Counsel, the plaintiff was entitled for injunction. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit field. In the light of the same, it was erroneous on the part of Courts below to hold that the plaintiff does not prove obstruction, when defendants are illegally using the cart track. 3. I have gone through the Judgments delivered by the courts below. No doubt, both the Courts have concurrently held the plaintiff to be the owner and possessor of the suit land, but have also held that plaintiff could not prove the obstruction, the same was on the premise that the Tahasildar, exercising his powers under Section 143 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, had 3 passed an order, wherein the cart track was made available to the defendant. The said order is subjudiced before the appellate authority. Plaintiff had not challenged the said order in the present proceedings, if any order is passed by the Civil Court same would be contrary to the orders passed by the revenue authority under Section 143 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue code. The plaintiff could not have maintained the suit for injunction, when the order of the Tahasildar against the plaintiff was in force, and the same was also subjudiced before the appellate authority. If, in the event the order of the Tahasildar, is set aside then only the plaintiff can have the cause of action to approach the Civil Court. Both the Courts have rightly observed that in the wake of order of the Tahasildar, passed under section 143 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code,the plaintiff could not have any right to complain about the defendant for using cart way. 4. In the light of the above, Second Appeal being sans of substantial question of law. 4 As such, Second Appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. In view of the dismissal of Second Appeal, the Civil Application if any does not survive and same is also disposed of. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA] JUDGE SDM* 718.10SA/241110