Bombay High Court
MATHURABAI RAMA PIMPARKARversusRAGHURAM SHANTARAM JAGTAP AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The Court held that there was no necessity to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the writ petition.
Summary
The petitioner, Mathurabai Rama Pimparkar, challenged concurrent judgments and orders issued under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906, alleging that the original order dated 2015, which has been in force for twelve years, adversely affected her rights. The High Court examined whether it was appropriate to interfere with an order that had been operational for such a long period. The Court observed that there was no compelling reason to set aside the impugned order at this stage. It further noted that if the petitioner’s substantive rights were indeed infringed, she could pursue appropriate substantive proceedings under the law. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court should interfere with an order passed under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906 that has been in force for twelve years.
- Whether the petitioner’s substantive rights are affected such that relief is warranted.
Legislation cited
- Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906 — s. 5
Subjects
- Writ petition
- Mamlatdar’s Courts Act
- Section 5
- Order interference
- Substantive rights
- Dismissal
Judgment
12-wp-9762-2016.doc
Vivekanand
Digitally
signed by
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
VIVEKANAND
VIVEKANAND RAJENDRA
RAJENDRA BONDE
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BONDE Date:
2026.09.28
17:24:13
+0530
WRIT PETITION NO. 9762 OF 2016
Mathurabai Rama Pimparkar … Petitioner
V/s.
Raghuram Shantaram Jagtap And Anr. … Respondents
Mr. Kuldeep Patil, for the Petitioner.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : SEPTEMBER 28, 2026
P.C.:
1. The Challenge in this petition arises out of concurrent
judgments and orders passed by the authorities under the
provisions of Sections 5 of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906. It
appears that the original order passed by the concerned authority
is of the year 2015. The said order is in force for the last 12 years.
2. In my opinion, therefore, at this stage, it is not necessary to
interfere with the impugned order. However, if the Petitioner’s
substantive rights are affected, it shall be open for the petitioner to
adopt appropriate substantive proceedings as are permissible in
law.
3. The writ petition, therefore, stands dismissed.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
1
Checking your session…