2024:BHC-AUG:23205 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 146 OF 2022 Jarasand S/0 Suryabhan Borkar, Age : 56 Years, Occ. Jawala (Bk.)

Tq and District Latur. Applicant (Orig. Defendant No.3)

VERSUS

1. Bhagwat S/o Suryakant Kale, Age : 51 Years, Occ. Agrilcutre

2, Bharat S/o Suryakant Kale, Age : 56 Years, Occ. Agriculture

3. Abasaheb s/o Dnyanoba Borkar, Age : 71 Years, Occ. Agriculture

4. Bhausaheb S/o Laxman Borkar, Age : 51 Years, Occ Agriculture

5. Tukaram S/o Laxman Borkar, Age : 54 Years, Occ. Agriculture

6. Netaji S/o Raosaheb Lomate, Age : 48 Years, Occ. Agriculture

7. Sangita W/o Netaji Lomate, Age : 41 Years, Occ. Agriculture All above No. 1 to 7 R/o Jawala (Bk.)

Tq. And District Latur

8. The District Collector Latur, 9. The Tahsildar, Latur Respondents (Orig. Plaintiffs)

…..

Advocate for the Applicant : Mr. Arun G. Dalal Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. Vikas G. Kodale Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 : Mr. D.V. Tele ….

CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.

DATED : SEPTEMBER 27, 2024.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard rival submissions at the admission stage.

2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 11.08.2022, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur i.e. learned trial Court, below Application Exh.40 in Regular Civil Suit No. 32 of 2021, the present applicant i.e. the original defendant No.3 in the aforesaid suit has filed this application. Under the impugned order, the learned trial Court has rejected the application (Exh.40) filed by the present applicant for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. Background facts leading to the present application are as under :-

The present applicant on 19.07.2018 had filed an application bearing proposal No. KV-90 of 2018 for grant of approach road/way to his agricultural land situated at Jawala (Bk.) Taluka and District Latur having Gut No. 115 admeasuring 2 H 73 R, under Section 143 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code 1966 (hereinafter referred to as for the brevity as "the Code”). The learned Nayab Tahsildar, Latur adjudicated the said application under the provision of the Code and vide order dated 04.02.2019 granted an approach way to the applicant as mentioned therein. Present Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who are the original plaintiffs in the aforesaid suit, had filed appeal against the said order of Nayab Tahsildar, Latur dated 04.02.2019 before the Sub Divisional officer, Latur bearing proposal No. 2019/IOR/27, but the same was dismissed by the concerned Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated 07.12.2020. Thereafter, on 14.06.2021, the applicant preferred an application before the concerned Tahsildar for carving out the said approach way and accordingly the Land Measurement Authorities in presence of panchas carved out that approach road. However, present respondent Nos.1 and 2 then filed aforesaid civil suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 32 of 2021 before the learned trial Court and thereby challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 04.02.2019 passed by the concerned Nayab Tahsildar Latur. The present applicant had also submitted his written statement on 11.01.2022 to resist the suit, but thereafter on 21.02.2022 he filed an application at (Exh.40) for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

4. In the said application (Exh.40), it was contended by the present applicant that the suit filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is not maintainable before the Civil Court for want of specific legal provision. It was also contended that even under Section 143(4) of the Code, the suit was not within limitation as it is filed beyond the period of limitation mentioned therein. It was also contended that under sub section (4) and (5) of Section 143 of the Code, the suit is barred since the plaintiffs had already exhausted remedy of appeal/revision against the order dated 04.02.2019 passed by the concerned Nayab Tahsildar. The learned trial Court, vide