This court accepted the statement of the Sub-Divisional Officer regarding the timeline for deciding a Revision Application.
None. Petition disposed on statement of the Sub-Divisional Officer.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
wp-10632.18
pmw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 10632 OF 2018
Shri. Hamir Ramji Paramar and Anr. Vs.
… Petitioners
Shri. Madhukar Badrilal Chaube and Ors. … Respondents
Ms. Anita Castellino I/b. Sayed Zia Amir Mohiddin for the Petitioners.
Ms. P.V. Thorat, for the Respondent No.1. Mr. Pravin Upadhyay for the Respondent No.6. Mr. Y.S. Khochare, AGP for the Respondent Nos.8 and 9.
CORAM : A.S.OKA AND M.S. SONAK, JJ. DATE : 24th SEPTEMBER 2018.
P.C. :
. Not on board. Taken on board.
dated 24th September 2018 addressed to him by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Karjat. The letter records that Revision Application No.3 of 2017 will be decided within a period of one month.
2 We accept the said statement.
3 It is obvious that if issue of jurisdiction of the SubDivisional Officer to entertain Revision Application is raised, the same will have to be dealt with and decided by the Sub-Divisional Officer. By accepting the statement of the Sub-Divisional Officer, we dispose of the petition. All contentions on merits are kept open.
(M.S. SONAK, J.) (A.S.OKA, J.)
1 of 1
Shri. Hamir Ramji Paramar and Anr.
Shri. Madhukar Badrilal Chaube and Ors.
A.S. Oka
M.S. Sonak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
