The Bench disposed of the writ petition as infructuous after the petitioner elected to continue a pending civil suit related to the same issue that was the subject of the revisional remedy sought here.
The writ petition was disposed of as infructuous following the petitioner's election to prosecute the civil suit.
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.
1
901wp10907o18
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.10907 OF 2018
BABURAO VITHOBA ZAVRE
VERSUS
MANDA DATTATRAYA KOKATE AND OTHERS
Advocate for the Petitioner : Shri Gawali Amol K.. Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 6 : Shri H.U.Dhage.
AGP for Respondents 7 and 8 : Shri S.R.Yadav.
CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
DATE :- 07th February, 2019
Per Court:
2 The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Revisional Authority dated 24.04.2018 under Section 23(2) of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906. By the said order, the Revisional Authority has refused to condone the delay caused by the Petitioner in filing the revision proceeding.
3 It is undisputed that after the Mamlatdar passed an order on 20.04.2016 under Section 5(2) of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906, the Petitioner being aggrieved, filed Special Civil Suit No.60/2016. Subsequent to the same, the Petitioner approached the Revisional Authority under Section 23(2).
2 901wp10907o18
4 Having considered the submissions of the learned Advocates
and since the issue, which is subjudice under the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906, is also the subject matter of the civil suit, it was brought to the notice of the Petitioner that he would have the choice of resorting to either of the proceedings. He places reliance upon the judgment of this Court delivered at Nagpur Bench in Shankar Govindrao Sarnaik and another vs. Sub Divisional Officer, Washim and others, 2012 (3) ALL MR 669 , wherein, it is concluded that the decision of the revisional authority under the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906 would be subject to the decision of the civil court.
5 Considering the above, the Petitioner was called upon to make a statement as to whether, he would prefer to continue to prosecute the suit or the revisional remedy. It is stated, on instructions, that the Petitioner would prosecute the suit and not the revisional remedy.
6 In view of the above, this Writ Petition is rendered infructuous and stands disposed of.
7 All contentions of the litigating sides in the civil suit are kept
open.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
kps
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to condone the delay in filing the revision proceeding under Section 23(2) of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906 in light of a pending civil suit.
Whether the writ petitioner declares a preference to prosecute the civil suit over the revisional remedy to dispose of the writ petition as infructuous.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shankar Govindrao Sarnaik and another vs. Sub Divisional Officer, Washim and othersReferred¶18
Shankar Govindrao Sarnaik and another vs. Sub Divisional Officer, Washim and others, 2012 (3) ALL MR 669
2 provisions across 1 enactments
BABURAO VITHOBA ZAVRE
MANDA DATTATRAYA KOKATE
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
