JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Kukday, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Deol Pathak, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. Hazare, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 and Mr. Ukey, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 5 and 6. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the rival parties.

2. The writ petition raises a challenge to the order passed by the learned Mamlatdar, in proceedings initiated before him under the provisions of section 5 of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906 (“the M.C. Act, 1906”, for short, hereinafter), whereby by an order dated 10-6-2021, temporary interim injunction was granted by him on the application filed by the respondent No. 1, against the petitioner, directing the petitioner, to make open the way. A Revision under section 23 of the M.C. Act, 1906, came to be filed by the present petitioner, which came to be dismissed by the order dated 12-7-2021, maintaining the interim order dated 10-6-2021.

3. Mr. Amit Kukday, learned Counsel for the petitioner, raises an interesting question, by contending, that under the provisions of the M.C. Act, 1906, the Mamlatdar does not have any p