1. Heard Mr. D. Pangam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. A. Phadte, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2a to 2c and 3a.

2. Rule. Heard forth with the consent of the learned counsel.

3. Mr. Phadte, learned counsel waives service on behalf of the respondent nos. 2a to 2c and 3a.

4. The above petition challenges the orders passed by the learned Mamlatdar and the learned Dy. Collector whereby in the proceedings under Section 4 of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, the learned Mamlatdar has granted a relief inter-alia directing the petitioners, their agents, contractors not to interfere and disturb the respondents from using the natural flow of water from the suit spring for the purpose of domestic use and for irrigating the agricultural land at any point of time.

5. Mr. Pangam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has taken me through the impugned order passed by the learned Mamlatdar and drew my attention to the findings of the learned Mamlatdar while discussing issue nos. 2 and 3 and pointed out that the learned Mamlatdar has come to a definite conclusion that the petitioners have not obstructed or attempted to obstruct the free flow of water to the property of the respondents. The learned counsel has further pointed out that the learned Mamlatdar while drawing such conclusion has relied upon the admission on the part of the respondents as well as the material on record and the site inspection carried out to hold that there was no material brought by the respondents to suggest that any obstruction or impediment was caused to the free flow of water to the property of the respondents. The learned counsel further pointed out that once the learned Mamlatdar has come to such conclusion, the question of granting any relief to the respondents in the manner in which such relief has been granted by the learned Mamlatdar would not arise. The learned counsel has thereafter taken me through the judgment of the learned Dy. Collector passed in the revision preferred by the petitioners wherein the learned Dy. Collector has also come to the conclusion that the respondents have failed to establish any impediment in the free flow of water into the property of the respondents. The learned counsel further pointed out that despite of drawing such conclusion, the learned Dy. Collector has dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioners. The learned counsel further pointed out that both the authorities below have acted in material irregularity affecting its jurisdiction while passing the impugned orders as they have exceeded their jurisdiction in granting the relief in favour of the respondents despite of the fact that there is no material to show that the petitioners have caused any impediment in the free flow of water to the property of the respondents. The learned counsel also pointed out that in terms of the provisions of Section 4 of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, such proceedings are to be filed within one year and both the authorities below have come to the conclusion that the plaint filed by the respondents was barred by limitation. The learned counsel further pointed out that once the learned Mamlatdar has come to such conclusion, granting of any relief would be in excess of his jurisdiction which is not permissible. The learned counsel as such points out that the impugned orders passed by the authorities below be quashed and set aside.

6. On the other hand, Mr. A. Phadte, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.2a to 2c and 3a has supported the impugned orders. The learned counsel pointed out that it is not in dispute that the learned Mamlatdar while deciding issue no.1 has come to the conclusion that the respondents are enjoying the free flow of water from the natural spring which is located adjoining the property of the petitioners. The learned counsel further pointed out that it is not open to the petitioners to cause any impediment to prevent the respondents from using the water