: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.629 OF 2008 M/s.Balraj Constructions Pvt. Ltd. ... Applicant V/s. Parveen P. Bhutani & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.S.P. Kanuga i/b S.N. Nath for Appellant Ms.Sowmya Srikrishna a/w Arun Siwach & Manukulkarni i/b Amarchand Mangaldas & S.A. Shroff Co. for Respondent No.1 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: JANUARY 29, 2010 P.C.: 1. The Civil Revision Application has been preferred against the order of 29.9.2008. By this order, the trial Court has held that it has jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the respondent No.1. After this order was passed, it appears that a written statement has already been filed by the applicant and the respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. It is submitted on behalf of the applicants that since there was no dispute with respect to the title of the property and the respective shares of the plaintiff and defendant No.1, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to vary the partition which had been effected by the Collector. The learned advocate for the applicant submits that : 2 : an appeal ought to have been filed under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code if the plaintiff was aggrieved by the partition effected by the Collector. 3. He further submits that in view of section 85 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, proper recourse for the plaintiff would be an appeal under the Code. He then submits that in view of section 54 of the Civil Procedure Code, it must be inferred that once the civil Court decides the title and the shares of the parties before it, the Collector would then divide the property. He submits that since in the present case there was no dispute regarding the title or the shares, the plaintiff ought to have agitated the grievance in an appeal under the Code. 4. These submissions are untenable. On a perusal of the plaint, it is obvious that the plaintiff has sought various reliefs including the cancellation of the partition deed. These reliefs cannot be granted by the authorities under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and therefore the civil Court has rightly held that it has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In any event, as mentioned earlier, the written statement has already been filed. 5. Therefore, the Civil Revision Application is dismissed.