(1) WP. 2985.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2985 OF 2010 1] KAMLAKAR MOHANSING MAHALE Age : 66 years, Occu.: Nil 2] BHASKAR SHANKAR PATIL Age : 45 years, Occu. : Service 3] RAVINDRA KAMLAKAR MAHALE Age : 35, Occu.: Service 4] SHAILENDRA KAMLAKAR MAHALE Age : 30, Occu.: Service All R/o WADGAON (BK) TQ BHADGAON DIST JALGAON VERSUS 1] RAVINDRA LAXMAN MALI @ MAHAJAN Age : Major, Occu.: Agril., R/o HIGH SCHOOL ROAD BHADGAON 2] SAHEBRAO RATHO MAHAJAN Age : Major, Occu.: Business, R/o Shri Swami Samarth Colony, Bhadgaon 3] PRAMOD KRUSHNARAO PATIL Age : Major, Occu.: Business R/o : OPP. DOKARA HALL, BHADGAON DIST JALGAON 4] SAU. MINAL MADHUKAR SONWANE, Age : Major, Occu.: Retired R/o: PACHORA ROAD, BHADGAON DIST JALGAON 5] VASANT TUKARAM WANI Age : Major, Occu.: Agri., R/o NEAR RAM MANDIR TQ BHADGAON DIST JALGAON (2) WP. 2985.2010 6] SHRIKURHSNA PARSHURAM WANI Age : Major, Occu.: Agri. R/o DATTA MATHI GALLI, BHADGAON DIST JALGAON 7] SURESH DHONDU SHIMPI Age : Major, Occu.: Business, R/o : MAIN ROAD, BHADGAON DIST JALGAON 8] SHARAD MURALIDHAR SONAR Age: Major, Occu.: Business R/o SONAR GALLI BHADGAON, DIST JALGAON 9] RAMESH EKNATH SONAR, Age : Major, Occu.: Retired, R/o : SONAR GALLI BHADGAON, DIST JALGAON 10]MADANLAL AMOLAKCHAND JAIN, Age : Major, Occu.: Business, R/o PACHORA ROAD BHADGAON, DIST JALGAON 11]THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER, NASHIK DIVISION NASHIK .. Respondents Mr. P.B. Shirsath, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, AGP for the respondent-State Respondent no.6 died. Respondent no.9 deleted as per Court's order dated 14.6.2010 ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 14TH JUNE, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT:- 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. (3) WP. 2985.2010 2] Respondent no.6 is no more. Mr. Shirsath seeks deletion of respondent no.9 as party. Amendment to be carried out immediately. 3] By this Petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik in RTS/Revision/73/07/33228/ 09. By this order, the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed for the reason that his Advocate remained absent on 5 dates of hearing. 4] Heard learned counsel and learned AGP. 5] The short question involved in the Petition is whether the revision Petition could be dismissed in default due to the absence of the Advocate for the petitioner. It is well settled that revisional jurisdiction is required to be exercised for the purpose of satisfaction of the competent revisional authority as regards legality and correctness of the order challenged by way of revision Petition. The revision Petition can be decided on merits when the Advocate for the revision petitioner is absent. The revisional jurisdiction is required to be exercised in supervisory manner. Obviously, the learned Additional Commissioner was required to examine the record and reach a proper conclusion on merits. The (4) WP. 2985.2010 revision could not be dismissed when the Advocate was found absent. Such dismissal is permissible only in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction and that too in an appropriate case. In case of revisional jurisdiction, the purpose of calling record is to examine whether the order impugned is in accordance with law or it is liable to be interferred with due to presence of arbitrariness or patent illegality. In revisional jurisdiction, the authority is not required to re-appreciate the evidence. Under these circumstances, the impugned order does not come within the legal parameters available to the revisional authority. 6] In the result, the Petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The revisional authority shall restore the revision Petition and may examine the record if the Advocate for the petitioner is found absent on next date and may decide the revision Petition on it's own merits. The petitioner is directed to appear before the revisional authority for hearing of the revision Petition on 12.07.2010. Rule made absolute in the above terms. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp