1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 3392/2004 Rambhau s/o Jogobaji Mahulkar vs. Sanjay Gangadhar Malode and others. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : A.P.LAVANDE, J DATE : 9.6.2008 Heard Mr. N.R.Saboo, learned counsel for the petitioner. None present on behalf of the respondents though served. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 29.4.2002 passed by Mamlatdar, Warud in Revenue Case No. MCA-5/Tembhurkheda/1-1999-2000 and order dated 28.7.2003 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Morshi in Revision Application No. MCA- 5/Tembhurkheda/2/2001-2002. The respondents filed application under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar Court Act against the present petitioner. The said application was allowed by the Mamlatdar Court by order dated 29.4.2002. Against the said order the present petitioner preferred the above referred revision application before the Sub Divisional Officer, Morshi under Section 23 of the Act. The Revisional Court dismissed the revision application. 3. Mr. Saboo, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in the Memo of Revision as well as during the course of arguments several contentions 2` were raised in support of the revision application. However, the Revisional Court while dismissing the revision application by the impugned order has not dealt with the grounds taken and the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer is liable to be set aside and the matter remanded to the Revisional Court to decide the revision afresh after considering the contentions on behalf of the petitioner. 4. I have considered the submissions made by Mr. Saboo. As stated above, none appears on behalf of the respondents though served. Perusal of the impugned order discloses that in the first four paragraphs of the impugned order the Sub Divisional Officer has set out the case set up by the rival parties and in paragraph no. 5 it has held that no case has been made out for interference. I find considerable merit in the submission of Mr. Saboo that the Revisional Court was dealing with the revision under the Act was expected to deal with the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner which have been specifically mentioned in the impugned order. However, the Revisional Court has not given any reason whatsoever for dismissing the revision application. It is axiomatic that the judicial or quasi-judicial authority while dealing with the revision application has to give reasons in support of the order. In Raj Kishor Jhav vs. State of Bihar (2003(11)SCC, 519 the Apex Court has held that the reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion and without the same it becomes lifeless. The ratio laid down in the said Judgment is squarely applicable in the present case. The impugned order therefore, is liable to be set aside on this sole ground only. 3` 5. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order dated 28.7.2003 passed by the Revisional Court is quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Revisional Court to decide the Revision Application afresh after giving an opportunity to both the parties and after considering the arguments, if any, advanced by both the sides in the light of the observations made above. 6. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The parties either in person or through their advocates shall appear before the Revisional Court on 22nd July, 2008 at 11.00 a.m.. The Revisional Court shall dispose of the revision application expeditiously. It is made clear that I have not expressed any opinion on merits of the matter. Judge patle 4`