1 wp10790.10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10790 OF 2010 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. V.P. Patil, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 5. Mr.D.R. Korade, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 6 and 7. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 19TH APRIL, 2011 Heard Advocate Mr. Patil for petitioner, Advocate Mr. Deshmukh for respondent nos. 1 to 5 and learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 6 and 7. 2. Short contention of Advocate Mr. Patil is that the order passed by Mamlatdar in proceedings under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar Courts Act was assailed before the Sub-Divisional Officer and though the Sub-Divisional Officer noted the grounds raised, the same have not been appreciated and without recording any finding only because of his opinion that way was necessary, the revision filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed. He contends that as the order is unreasoned same is 2 wp10790.10 unsustainable. He further points out that though the civil dispute vide Regular Civil Suit no. 82 of 2009 is pending between the parties, the trial Court has on 09.02.2010 granted temporary injunction to plaintiff therein only because of order of Tahsildar which is impugned in the present matter. 3. Advocate Mr. Deshmukh contends that as the matter is now being looked into by competent authority namely Civil Court and interim order is operating since 09.02.2010, this Court should not interfere in the matter. He invites attention to the judgment delivered by Sub- Divisional Officer to urge that it contains appropriate reasons. 4. Learned A.G.P. is supporting the order of the Sub- Divisional Officer. 5. Perusal of the order dated 07.01.2009 show that though grounds raised by the present petitioner in his Memo of Revision are briefly noted, no finding upon it has been expressly recorded. Petitioner has filed the said proceedings as appeal when infact it should have been revision. The Sub-Divisional Officer has also decided the said matter as an appeal but then obligations of appellate Court as are apparent from the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported at " 2001(2) Mh.L.J. 786"- Santosh Hazari V/s Purushottam Tiwari deceased by L.Rs. are 3 wp10790.10 not discharged. However, at least here, I do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity to interfere because parties are already before the Civil Court and what is tenable before S.D.O. is revision only. 6. Advocate Mr. Patil has pointed out that the orders passed by the trial Court dated 09.02.2010 below Exhibit-5 are assailed by the petitioners in Misc. Civil Appeal and that appeal is pending. The appellate Court therefore can look into all aspects and decide the matter uninfluenced by observations made by Tahsildar and Sub-Divisional Officer. 7. With these observations and directions, the present Petition is disposed of. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp10790.10