1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATEJURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1593 OF 2003 Jagannath@ Vilas Sambhaji Sawant & Another ...Petitioners Versus Kundalika Ananta Shinde & Others ...Respondents Mr.Abhijeet Kandarkar i/b. S.G.Deshmukh for the Petitioner None for the Respondents CORAM:- R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED:- 15th SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C. 1. The respondents had filed Regular Civil Suit No.60 of 1978 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jath, District Sangli for certain reliefs. In the course of the said proceeding, an issue was required to be framed as to whether the present petitioners are agricultural tenants in respect of the suit property. That issue was referred to the tenancy authorities in accordance with the provisions of Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Land Act, 1948. The Tahsildar had decided 2 the said issue against the petitioners. The petitioners therefore filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority and by application at Exhibit 82 prayed that hearing of the aforesaid Regular Civil Suit No. 60 of 1978 should be stayed till disposal of the said appeal. Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jath, considered the said application and by order dated 6.2.1999 rejected the application at Exhibit 82 and directed the parties to co-operate with the Court so as to dispose of the suit as early as possible. This order dated 6.2.1989 is challenged in this petition. 2. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, at the outset made a statement that the aforesaid suit is pending even as of today. It is noticed that the Tenancy Appeal No.4 of 1998 filed by the petitioners against the decision of the Tahsildar in Court Reference No.2 of 1984 was dismissed for default. The petitioners approached the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Kolhapur in Revision Application No51/B/1999/Sangli. The learned designated Member of the Revenue Tribunal has by Order dated 4.2.2002 allowed the said revision application. The order of the Appellate Court was set aside and the said appeal is restored to the file of the Tenancy Appellate 3 Court. The petitioners were called upon to file affidavit so as to put on record the factual aspect as regards tenancy of the said tenancy appeal by order dated 24.6.2011. Today, learned Advocate for the petitioner has filed affidavit of petitioner no.1 affirmed on 29.7.2011 along with the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 4.2.2002, thereby restoring the aforesaid appeal to the Appellate Authority. The petitioner no.1 has in the aforesaid affidavit dated 29th July, 2011 stated that the petitioners have not received any notice from the Appellate Court till date about hearing of the matter. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, across the bar stated that as per his client the said appeal is still pending. Since the statement is made across the bar, the said statement is accepted. The affidavit filed by the petitioner no.1 is hereby taken on record. Adverting to the correctness of the order dated 6.2.1999 it is required to be observed that once the question whether the defendants or any one of the agricultural tenant is pending before the Appropriate Revenue Authorities, in accordance with the provisions of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, the present suit, namely Regular Civil Suit No.60 of 1978 cannot proceed till that appeal is disposed of. 4 3. I have perused the order dated 6.2.1999. The view taken by the learned Civil Judge, while deciding the said application at Exhibit 82 is not correct. He has observed that the suit cannot be kept pending till the disposal of the appeal. The very purpose of making a reference to the Revenue Authorities, and waiting for finding from authorities would be frustrated if the suit is proceeded 4. In my view the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the order dated 6.2.1999 deserves to be set aside is correct. It is required to be mentioned that so long as the tenancy appeal filed by the defendants being Tenancy Appeal No.4 of 1998 is pending, the Regular Civil Suit cannot proceed. Hence the order dated 6.2.1999 is required to be set aside. It is required to be observed that the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jath, before whom Regular Civil Suit No.60 of 1978 is pending shall attend to the said suit only when the reference made to the Tahsildar has reached finality. This observation is made in the light, that the view once taken by a Judge before whom the suit is pending. Hence following order is passed to dispose of the petition. 5 ORDER i) Order dated 6.2.2009 passed below Exhibit 82 in Regular Civil Suit No. 60 of 1978 is set aside. Application at Exhibit 82 is allowed. Till the disposal of Tenancy Appeal No.4 of 1998, proceeding in Regular Civil Suit No 60 of 1978 pending in he court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, District Sangli shall remain stayed. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)