Balraj Kisanrao Dhajal And ORS. v. Sidramappa Nagappa Mamure

1/2 10.WP.9985-15.doc [Balraj v Sidramappa]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9985 OF 2015 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders.

Mr.Anand S. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.I.M. Khairdi, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : R. G. KETKAR, J.

DATE : 03/05/2017 P.C.:

1.

Heard Mr.Anand Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.I.M. Khairdi, learned Counsel for the respondent.

2.

This Petition takes exception to (1) orders dated 30.9.2009 passed by Circle Officer, Shelagi (2) dated 29.3.2013 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Solapur, (3) dated 8.4.2015 passed by the learned Addl. Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune. The grievance of the petitioners is that though the trial Court decreed the suit for partition on 29.6.2015, the revenue authorities did not take cognizance of the application made by the petitioners for changing the mutation entry in pursuance of the decree of the Civil Court. It is common

2/2 10.WP.9985-15.doc [Balraj v Sidramappa] ground between the parties that aggrieved by the trial Court's order, Appeal is preferred in the District Court.

3.

It is common ground between the parties that aggrieved by the decision dated 29.6.2015, appeal is preferred before the District Court. Pending the appeal, no interim order is operating. In view thereof, Petition is disposed of by directing the revenue authorities to give effect to the decision of the Civil Court. Order accordingly.

(R. G. KETKAR, J.) Deshmane(PS)