1. Rule made returnable forthwith.

Heard Shri Bhangde, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri V.V.Bhangde, for the petitioners, Shri Gordey, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Smt. Raskar, for respondent No.1, Shri Patil, learned counsel for respondent no.2, Smt. Deshpande, the learned Assistant Govt. Pleader for Respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 5. Though respondent No. 6 is served, none appears for her. Hence, it is not necessary to issue fresh notice to respondent no.6.

2. The Tahsildar, Hingna, has passed an order under Section 54 of C.P.C. effecting partition of the suit property on 14.09.2010. The partition was done pursuant to the judgment and decree passed in Special Civil Suit No.925/1998, dated 21st November, 2006. Accordingly, the parties are put in possession of the property on 18.05.2011. The entries in 7/12 extract in respect of the property in question have also been taken in the name of the respective parties.

3. The respondent no.1, who claims to be the purchaser of the suit property, pending the decision of the suit, preferred an appeal under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (in short MLR Code). The Sub Divisional Officer, Nagpur, has decided the said appeal on 14th June, 2011, setting aside the order dated 14.09.2010, passed by the Tahsildar, Hingna and directing remand of the matter to the Tahsildar for fresh enquiry and for passing order as per the provisions of law.

4. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer on 14th June, 2011, the petitioners herein who are the plaintiffs and the defendants in the Special Civil Suit No. 925/1998 have preferred the Revenue Appeal No. 109/SRV43/ 2010-11 under Section 247 of MLR Code. The same is pending before the Additional Collector, Nagpur. In that appeal, an application for grant of stay to the order of remand dated 14.06.2011 passed by the S.D.O., Nagpur, was moved. The said application has been rejected by the Additional Collector by order dated 4th July, 2011, holding that the S.D.O. has already remanded the matter back to the Tahsildar for fresh enquiry and passing the order as per the provisions of law and hence it will not be proper to grant stay to the order under challenge in the interest of justice. This is the order which is the subject matter of challenge in this petition.

5. On 21st July, 2011, this Court issued notices to the respondents and granted adinterim relief in terms of prayer clause (ii) of the petition. The interim relief is to the stay to the order dated 14.06.2011 passed by the S.D.O. and the order restraining the respondents from disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property, pending the decision of the petition.

6. Shri Gordey, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 has raised the preliminary objection as to the existence of an alternate efficacious remedy by way of revision under Section 257 of MLR Code. He submits that power under Section 257 is as wide as the power of the Appellate Court and the petitioners can move the Commissioner under Section 257 of MLR Code, challenging the legality and propriety of the decision refusing to grant stay. He has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1966 SC 142 [Sales Tax Officer, Jodhpur and another vrs. M/s. Shiv Ratan G. Mohatta] to urge that it is not the object of Article 226 of the Constitution of India to convert the High Court in Original or Appellate jurisdiction to determine the questions. He has also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1970 SC 645 [Champalal Binani vrs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal and others], to urge that the writ of certiorari is discretionary and it is not issued merely because it is lawful to do so.

7. Replying to the preliminary objection, Shri Bhangde, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has urged that the remedy under Section 257 of the MLR Code is not as a matter of right and the Commissioner may at his discretio