1 48-wp-2002-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY srj CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2002 OF 2011 Mr. Anant M. Gosavi & Others .. Petitioners. V/s. Mr. Vinayak D. Gosavi & Others .. Respondents. Mr. Oak, i/b. Mr. Sagar Joshi, for the Petitioners. None for the Respondent. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATE : 15th MARCH, 2011. P.C.: 1 Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners. It is not disputed that the revision is maintainable against the impugned order. However, Mr. Oak submitted that by the impugned order passed on 8th July, 2010, the mutation entry no.846 which was certified in the year 1958, was quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back. He also relied upon the Apex Court’s judgment in the case of Mr. Santoshkumar S. Patil v/s. Balasaheb T. Shevale & Others – 2 48-wp-2002-11.sxw reported in (2009) 9 SCC 352 to contend that revisional power can be exercised within the reasonable period and the reasonable period can be of three years. 2 Since Appeal/Revision is maintainable against the impugned order and the Petitioner is at liberty to adopt such remedy, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India. The Petition is, therefore, dismissed by passing following order:- ORDER (i) Writ Petition is disposed off as not maintainable. However, Petitioner is at liberty to challenge the impugned order by filing an Appeal/Revision before the competent authority; (ii) In the event, Petitioner files Revision Application within the period of four weeks from today, same shall be disposed off by the concerned authority independently on its own merits and without being influenced by the present order. 3 48-wp-2002-11.sxw 4 In order to enable the Petitioner to approach the competent authority, the implementation, operation and execution of the impugned order, is stayed for the period of four weeks from today. (RANJIT MORE, J.)