1 PGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.4040 of 2009 Shri Sadu Rama Vaskar .. ... Petitioner v/s. Shri Pandee Mahdev Vaskar .. ... Respondent Mr.Uday Warunjikar for Petitioner. Ms.P.S. Cardozo for Res.No.3. Mr.Mahesh V. Rawool for Res.No.1. ----- CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 26th February, 2010 P.C. : 1.Rule, returnable forthwith. 2.The Petitioner claims rights as member of the joint family in agricultural land belonging to the HUF of 3 brothers. The Petitioner claims his right under Mutation Entry No.91079. That Mutation Entry has been disputed by Respondent No.1, who is the brother of the Petitioner since 27.11.1980 pursuant to the order of the Revenue Authority of that date. The fact of the dispute is recorded in the Mutation Entry itself. There has been a revenue proceeding and a Civil Suit is filed by the Petitioner. The Petitioner claims 1/3rd portion of the land. The Petitioner has filed a Civil Suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, 2 Ajara, District Kolhapur. The dispute could have been decided only in the Civil Suit filed by the Petitioner upon the Petitioner leading the necessary evidence of the joint family property. That Suit has been dismissed since 5.3.1997. Though the order shows that the Suit has been dismissed for want of prosecution, the Petitioner has not applied for having the Suit restored. The Application has become final. Hence, the impugned order has been passed by the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune, relying, inter alia, upon the fact that the Petitioner has not proved his claim to the 1/3rd share in the Civil Suit. The impugned order has been passed on 28.11.2008. The order of dismissal of the Petitioner s Suit has remained for over a decade until the impugned order is passed. Hence the impugned order cannot be faulted. The Writ Petition to set aside the impugned order is misconceived. The impugned order stands. The Petitioner may take such proceedings as he desires in respect of the Suit which has now stood dismissed for over 13 years, which shall be considered on its own merits. 3.The Writ Petition is dismissed and Rule is discharged accordingly. 4.No order as to costs. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)