1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No. 199/2009 in W. P. No. 2220/2008 Ramdas Ramchandra Umathe ..vs.. Gram Panchayat Morchapur ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Amol Mardikar, Advocate for appellant. CORAM: S. A. BOBDE & F. M. REIS,JJ. DATED : 6 th July, 2009 1. Heard. 2. This is an appeal against judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court rejecting appellant’s application for amendment. We find that the learned Single Judge has rejected application for amendment on the principle of finality. Earlier, the appellant had agitated his rights over 86 R of land on the basis of rersettlement order. Extract of the rights was not accepted by the Courts and it was found that the appellant was entitled to only 56 R of land. Later on, it appears that the appellant moved the appellate authority under the revenue law and the appellate authority is said to have held that the appellant is entitled to 86 R. On that basis, appellant has moved the present application for amendment in the subsequent suit claiming that he is entitled to 86 R of land. The trial Court rejected the application for amendment on the ground that the appellant has chosen the wrong remedy. 2 The trial Court has found that there is no justification for the revenue authorities to come to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to 86 R land. In the challenge to that order, the learned Single Judge has upheld the order of the trial Court and has observed that there is no final decision in his favour from the revenue authority. That he cannot be allowed to raise and agitate that question in the Civil Court, particularly when earlier finding against him in the previous litigation has become final against him. 3. We are in agreement with the judgment of the learned Single Judge and would further add that since the appellant does not appear to have acquired any additional land subsequent to the judgment in the earlier litigation the matter has become final and there is no warrant for waiting for any final decision from the revenue authority. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in the appeal. It is, therefore, dismissed. 4. The appellant shall be entitled to withdraw the amount of Rs. 10,000/- deposited by him towards costs since the said amount had not been made payable under order dated 18.06.2009. JUDGE JUDGE kahale