SAWANT SADAN CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD THR. ITS SECRETARY SHRI DEEPAK RAOversusPARAG CHANDRAKANT SAWANT

                                                                              37. IA 6496-2026.doc



                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                     INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6496 OF 2026
                                                      IN
                                       REVIEW PETITION NO. 113 OF 2026
                                                      IN
                                      WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 5045 OF 2026

                      Sawant Sadan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. .Applicant

                      IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN
         Digitally
         signed by

ANAND
         ANAND
         SUDHAKAR
                      Sawant Sadan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. .Review Petitioner/
SUDHAKAR SUDAME
SUDAME   Date:
         2026.09.08
                                                                      (Ori.Res.No.5)
         10:40:58
         +0530                    Vs.

                      Parag Chandrakant Sawant & ors.                    .Respondents

                      Mr. Y. S. Bhate @ Mr. Viraaj Y. Bhate i/b. Bhate & Associates,
                      Advocates, for the Applicant/Review Petitioner
                      Mr. Sandesh Deshpande, Advocate, for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5

                                          CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

                                          DATE     : 03.09.2026
                      P. C.

                      1.      At the outset, Mr. Bhate persuades the Court to consider granting

                      the Interim Application, since there is a delay of 122 days in filing the

                      Review Petition. The Interim Application stands allowed in view of the

                      reasons stated therein subject to the Review Petition being heard

                      forthwith. Mr. Bhate agrees to the same and argues the Review Petition

                      forthwith. In that view of the matter, the Interim Application stands

                      allowed and the delay of 122 days in filing the Review Petition stands

                      Anand                               1 of 5
                                                        37. IA 6496-2026.doc

condoned.

2.      The Review Petition is taken up for hearing forthwith. The prayer

in the Review Petition is for review, re-call and modification of the

orders dated 05.0.3026 and 07.04.2026. The order dated 05.03.2026 is

appended at page 31 of the Review Petition. The order dated

07.04.2026 is a consequential order regarding some typographical

corrections to be made in the previous order with regard to the

nomenclature of the suit proceeding number which has been reflected

therein. Essentially, the order under Review is 05.03.2026. According

to Mr. Bhate, his first submission is that without issuing notices to the

private Respondents in the Writ Petition, this Court has committed an

error apparent on the face of record by determining the Writ Petition.

What is determined by virtue of the order dated 05.03.2026 is, in fact,

a direction to the learned Trial Court to dispose of the pending suit

proceeding since 2019 expeditiously and nothing more. In effect, the

Writ Petition was never determined at all. In such scenario, there was

no reason or question of notices to be issued to the private

Respondents. This ground is as innocuous as possible on the face of

record. Be that as it may. The aforesaid submission is attempted to be

made along with the argument that the private Respondents had

succeeded in revision proceedings before the Minister and therefore, by


Anand                               2 of 5
                                                           37. IA 6496-2026.doc

virtue of that revision order, the private Respondents’ names were

mutated in the revenue record and they are the owners of the property.

By virtue of the Writ Petition, this Court has not attempted to touch the

said mutation entry and its legality. The right of the Petitioners in the

Writ Petition has been exercised by filing a Civil Suit for title in the year

2019. The said suit is pending since then. What was argued before me

in the Writ Petition was that this Court should intervene because prima

facie, there was a delay on the part of the private Respondents in

approaching the Superintendent of Land Records for carrying out and

seeking the mutation entries. Though the facts have been specifically

noted in paragraph No. 3, this Court has refrained from exercising any

authority or right qua the substantive rights of the parties much less

the Applicants in the Interim Application. When it was brought to the

notice of the Court that the Petitioners in the Writ Petition had already

filed a Civil Suit with regard to entitlement and title of the subject

property, the only order that could be passed without touching the

merits of the RTS Case was to direct expeditious disposal of the said

Civil Suit. Though Mr. Bhate would argue across the bar that the Civil

Suit filed by the Petitioners before the Civil Court is on the basis of a

probate which was obtained by them on the ground that they were the

legatees of the original owner, I have not countenanced that or opined


Anand                                3 of 5
                                                           37. IA 6496-2026.doc

on that. The same would undoubtedly be decided in the Civil Suit. The

order dated 05.03.2026, prima facie, records that mutation entries do

not confirm or establish title of the parties in whose name they are

standing and that they are, essentially, made for fiscal purposes and to

give effect to revenue record. That is the trite law. It is also specifically

stated therein that such mutation entry be it in the name of any party

would undoubtedly be subject to the outcome of the title suit which

was pending and therefore, the only direction given in paragraph No. 5

of the order was to dispose of the suit within a time bound programme

considering that the suit was pending for the past more than seven

years. Mr. Bhate has argued across the bar today that such a direction

is unwarranted especially, when the private Respondents in the Writ

Petition had succeeded in revision proceedings in mutating their name

in the revenue record. He would, therefore, persuade the Court to re-

call and review the order dated 05.03.2026.

3.      In view of my aforesaid observations, the submissions made by

Mr. Bhate are unfortunately innocuous and unmeritorious. The

submission that this Court should hear the private Respondents and

upholdthe Revision order and ought not to have passed the order dated

05.03.2026 to determine the Civil Suit in a time bound programme

cannot be countenanced at all and that is why I do not agree with


Anand                                4 of 5
                                                         37. IA 6496-2026.doc

Mr. Bhate. Filing this Review Petition is nothing but a sheer abuse of

the due process of law, as there is no error apparent whatsoever found

in the order dated 05.03.2026. The said order, in fact, categorically

states that all parties to the suit proceeding shall be at liberty to apply

to the competent authority on the basis of the final order that would be

passed in the suit proceedings for mutation and after the suit is

adjudicated and disposed of by the learned Trial Court. To file a review

and suggest to the Court that the private Respondents’ suit proceedings

should not be even looked at by the Court especially when a title suit is

filed and pending and primary be given to RTS proceedings and orders

therein is something which cannot be countenanced by the Court. In

that view of the matter, the present Review Petition stands expressly

dismissed.

4.      Though I was inclined to award costs, however since the review

Petitioner before me is a Co-operative Housing Society comprising of

12 members and Mr. Bhate has been a very good officer of this Court,

no order as to costs.

5.      Review Petition is dismissed.



                                                 (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.)




Anand                                   5 of 5