1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 145 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4066 OF 2010 Shri Baswant Bhimrao Patil and another ).. Appellants versus Shri Rajendra Jaywant Patil and others ).. Respondents Mr. S.M. Sabrad for the Appellants. Mr. Surel S. Shah for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. A.I. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.3 and 4. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 28TH JUNE 2010 P.C. This Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 1st June 2010 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition of the appellants herein. The appellants had challenged the dated 22nd April 2010 of the Additional Collector, Solapur in Revision Application No.1 of 2010. By the said order, the Additional Collector set aside the order of the Tahsildar and held that Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were entitled to have a road on the bandh of Gat Nos.44 and 45 to khata holder of Gat No.38 for going to Balgi Gaothan. This direction of the Additional Collector was given after considering the map, the panchanama 2 and the affidavits of the owners of the adjoining lands. The Additional Collector also made it clear that the direction was subject to the outcome of Regular Civil Suit No.389 of 2009 filed by the Appellants herein for a declaration that no cart way exists on the land in question and also for a direction for perpetual injunction to restrain Respondent Nos.1 and 2 from using the cart way. The Civil Court in its interlocutory order dated 14th August 2009 had, while restraining the Defendants (Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein) from disturbing possession of the Plaintiffs (Appellants herein) over the suit property, specifically clarified that the order will not come in the way of proceedings pending before the Tahsildar. In view of the above, though the controversy between the parties is subject matter of the above numbered Suit pending before Civil Court, the Civil Court itself has directed the Tahsildar to exercise the powers under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, 1906. 2. In view of the above and the clarification made by the Additional Collector by his order that the order would be subject to the outcome of the Suit, we see no merit in this Appeal. 3. Since we are inclined to dismiss the Appeal on the above ground, we have not gone into the preliminary question sought to be raised by the learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the Appeal is not maintainable as the order of the learned Single Judge was passed in exercise of the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3 4. Subject to the clarifications above-mentioned, the Appeal is dismissed. 5. It is further directed that the Officers of the State Government shall ensure that implementation of the order of the Additional Collector causes least inconvenience to the Appellants. CHIEF JUSTICE S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.