Bombay High CourtCRA/8/2015dispossed offdismiss for default

Prakash S/O Mango Jadhav And Another v. Bhagwansing S/O Nayansingh Rajput

2015-02-20Hon'Ble Shri Justice Z.A. Haq3 pages

1 cra8.15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.8/2015 Prakash s/o Mango Jadhav and another ..Versus..

Bhagwansing s/o Nayansingh Rajput - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------- - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.

DATE : 20.2.2015 Heard Shri A.J. Thakkar, the learned advocate for the applicants and Shri Mahesh Rai, the learned advocate for the non-applicant.

The civil revision application is filed challenging the order passed by the Sub-Divisional officer exercising his revisional

2 cra8.15 jurisdiction under Section 23(2A) of the Mamlatdars' Court's Act holding that the Sub-Divisional Officer had no powers to decide the revision. The issue raised in the civil revision application is covered by the judgment given by this Court in the case of Bija s/o Maroti Hatwar V/s. Kisan s/o Chirkut Padole and another reported in 2015(1) Mh.L.J. 282 in which it is held that the revisional powers under Section 23(2A) cannot be delegated to the Sub-Divisional Officer. In view of the above, the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer on 18 th February, 2014 is set aside.

Shri Thakkar, the learned advocate seeks liberty to challenge the order passed by the learned Mamlatdar and Tahsildar on 31 st January, 2013 by filing revision before the Competent Authority. If the revision is filed within one month from today, the Authority dealing with the revision shall consider the application filed by the applicants praying for condonation of delay sympathetically, taking into

3 cra8.15 consideration the fact that earlier revision was filed by the applicants was within the prescribed period of limitation. The civil revision application is disposed of in the above terms. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGE Tambaskar.