JUDGMENT - A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.:---This petition takes exception to the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur dated 27-10-1998 in Tribunal Appeal No. B-109/5/98 decided.

2. This writ petition was heard on 17-8-2000 and the judgment was also pronounced in open Court. However, immediately before rising of the Court, the learned Counsel for the petitioner mentioned the matter and urged that the judgment may not be signed since vital matters have not been brought to the notice of the Court including the decision of this Court reported in 1987(2) Bom.C.R. 261 (Barikrao Nayansing Rajput v. Bandu Ana Bhil and others)1. At that time the Counsel for the respondent had already left the Court and therefore, the petitioners' Counsel was asked to inform the other side and mention the matter by giving notice to the other side. The matter was once again mentioned before me on 22-8-2000 and a request for rehearing the matter was made, when the Counsel for the contesting respondent i.e. respondent No. 3 was present alongwith the Counsel for the petitioners. By consent the matter was placed for hearing on 8-9-2000. However, it appears that the proceedings for mentioning which took

Click Here to Read the rest of this document