Petition dismissed due to failure to timely raise objections on cause of action and plaint particulars, constituting waiver under the Mamlatdar's Courts Act.

1. Rule.

2. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard both sides by consent for final disposal.

3. Instant petition challenges order dated 21st May, 2020 passed by Tahsildar under Section 5(2) of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906 and order dated 3rd March, 2021 passed in RTS Revision No. 68/2020 under Section 23(2) of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act (‘Act’ for short), passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pathardi Division, Pathardi.

4. Factual Matrix : On 15th July, 2021, the Respondents herein sought preventive injunction against the Petitioner from obstructing them, from using the road that passes through the Gut No. 20 and to remove impediment caused by him thereto. Tahsildar vide order dated 6th March, 2012 granted the injunction. In Revision at the instance of the Petitioner, the Sub-Divisional Officer vide order dated 22nd July, 2012 set aside the injunction order and remanded the proceedings to Tahsildar for re- consideration and directed to conclude the proceedings within three months. In the mean while, parties were directed to maintain status-quo. Unfortunately, Tahsildar concluded the proceedings on 7th March, 2019 (after eight years), whereby directed the Petitioner to remove impediment to use of suit road and restrained him from causing disturbance or obstruction to the use of suit road. The order of the Tahsildar was confirmed in Revision by the Sub-Divisional Officer vide order dated 3rd March, 2021. It is against this order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, instant petition is preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. Petitioner would argue that the Courts below have committed obvious error in entertaining the plaint, without first ascertaining, whether suit was brought within six months from the date on which the cause of action arose. Submission is that plaint presented by the Respondents on 15th July, 2011 does not contain particulars required in terms of Section 7, Clause (d) and (e) i.e. as to the date on which the cause of action arose and the circumstances out of which the cause of action arose and therefore Mamlatdar ought to have rejected the plaint under Section 12 of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Vishnu Sukhdev Ghanvat and Ors. Vs. The Collector, Ahmednagar and Ors. 2017(1)Mh.Lj.811; wherein learned Judge of this Court has held that the “provisions of Sections 19 and Section 5(3) of the Act would show that suit needs to be brought within six months from the date of cause of action and this is mandatory in nature.”

6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondents and the State supported the impugned orders and would contend that objections as to admissibility of the plaint for want of particulars, as to when cause of action arose, was not taken before the Tahsildar. It is submitted that the objections of this kind cannot be taken and or entertained for the first time, in Writ Petition and that too, after two rounds (original and in remand), while concurrent findings of facts have been recorded by two fact – finding authorities against him.

7. To appreciate contentions of respective Counsel, it would be expedient to reproduce relevants provisions of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act.

Provisions read as under;

“Section 5(3) : No suit shall be entertained by Mamlatdar’s Court unless it is brought within six months from the date on which the cause of action arose.”

“Section 7(d) : All suits under this Act shall be commenced by a plaint, which shall be presented to the Mamlatdar in open Court by the Plaintiff and which shall contain the date on w