1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No.3183/2009 (Pralhad Gupta ..V/s.. State of Maharashtra & others) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. J.M. Gandhi, counsel for petitioner. Mr. C.N. Adgokar, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 to 5. CORAM:- A.B.CHAUDHARI, J. DATED:- 30 th September, 2009. Mr. Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was not made party to the proceedings in Tenancy Case No.5/59(14)/82-83 of Antraj and material facts were suppressed from the said Tahsildar Khamgaon. Not only that according to him, petitioner never had any reason to know about the said order or the proceedings and since number of years have already gone, the present writ petition has been filed. In my opinion when statutory appeal is provided by the Bombay Tenancy Act, the petitioner ought to have availed normal remedy of filing appeal. If there is any delay in filing the appeal, the petitioner can explain the delay. Hence this petition cannot be entertained. 2 The same is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to file appeal and or take such steps as available under law. No order as to costs. JUDGE Tambaskar.