Bombay High Court
DATTARAO TUKARAM WANKHEDEversusNARAYAN KISHANRAO GHUTE AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- AJIT B KADETHANKAR
Holding
The court held that the appropriate remedy is to contest the civil suit and the writ petition is therefore disposed.
Summary
The dispute involves two adjacent landowners where Respondent No.1 initiated proceedings under Section 5(3) of the Mamlatdar Courts Act, 1906 before the Tahsildar, which were rejected for delay. A revision under Section 23 of the same Act was filed before the Sub‑Divisional Officer, who allowed the revision and remanded the matter to the Tahsildar, condoning the delay. The petitioner had already instituted a civil suit seeking a perpetual injunction against the respondent in a competent civil court. The High Court held that the appropriate remedy for Respondent No.1 is to contest the civil suit on its merits, as the civil court’s findings will prevail over any parallel Mamlatdar proceedings. Consequently, Respondent No.1 agreed not to pursue further Mamlatdar proceedings and the writ petition was disposed, with the parties’ contentions kept open for any future counter‑claim and limitation issues in the civil suit.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition under the Mamlatdar Courts Act can proceed when a parallel civil suit for perpetual injunction is pending.
- Whether the findings of the civil court will prevail over the Mamlatdar Court proceedings.
- Whether the respondent can continue Mamlatdar proceedings after filing a civil suit.
Legislation cited
- Mamlatdar Courts Act, 1906 — s. 23, 5(3)
Subjects
- civil suit
- perpetual injunction
- Mamlatdar Courts Act
- limitation
- jurisdiction
- writ petition
- revision
- remand
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:9285
(1) 19 WP 7240 OF 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
19 WRIT PETITION NO. 7240 OF 2024
DATTARAO TUKARAM WANKHEDE
VERSUS
NARAYAN KISHANRAO GHUTE AND OTHERS
...
Mr. S. S. Chillarge, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. S. D. Ghayal, Add.GP for Respondent Nos.2 and 3
Mr. S. S. Londhe, Advocate for Respondent No.1
…
CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
DATE : 04.03.2026
PER COURT :-
. Heard Mr. Chillarge, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.
S. Londhe, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
2. This dispute arises between two adjacent landowners. Respondent
No. 1 filed proceedings under Section 5(3) of the Mamlatdar Courts Act, 1906
before the Tahsildar, Himayatnagar. The Tahsildar rejected the proceedings on
the ground of delay in filing the same. Thereafter, the respondent had filed a
revision under Section 23 of the Mamlatdar Courts Act, 1906 before the
Hon’ble Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Sub-Divisional Office, Hadgaon, District
Nanded. The SDO allowed the revision and remanded back the matter to the
Tahsildar for consideration on merit, condoning the delay. In response, the
respondent, by way of a reply affidavit, brought to the court’s notice that the
(2) 19 WP 7240 OF 2024
petitioner has already filed a civil suit seeking a perpetual injunction against
the respondent in the competent Civil Court.
3. In view of the above, the remedy for Respondent No.1 would be
to contest the suit on its merits and to assert his civil rights in the Civil Court
only. It is trite law that the findings of the Civil Court would prevail over other
litigation between the parties, including any dispute under the Mamlatdar
Court's Act. Accordingly, Mr. S. S. Londhe, learned counsel for Respondent
No.1, on instructions, has stated that Respondent No.1 will not pursue further
proceedings under the Mamlatdar Court's Act and will instead prosecute his
rights in the pending Civil Suit.
4. In view of this, the writ petition stands disposed of.
5. All the contentions of the parties are kept open.
6. The learned counsel for Respondent No.1 would submit that
Respondent No. 1 proposes to file a counterclaim in the suit, and the issue of
limitation may arise therefrom. In that view, the learned Civil Court may
consider the question of limitation in filing the counterclaim, keeping in mind
the proceedings pending between the parties under the Mamlatdar Courts Act
as also pendency of this writ petition.
[AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]
PRW
Checking your session…