The jurisdiction of civil courts to adjudicate challenges to decisions made under the Mamlatdars' Courts Act is affirmed, as statutory remedies do not exclude civil litigation.

CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.

RESERVED ON : 9^th JULY, 2025 PRONOUNCED ON: 4^th AUGUST, 2025 JUDGMENT :

. All these petitions arise out of proceedings under the Mamlatdars' Courts Act, 1906 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The controversy in all these cases pertains to orders passed under Section 5 (2) of the Act whereby the learned Mamlatdar has passed the order directing the petitioners to remove obstruction on road claimed by the respondents/original plaintiffs. The petitioners in all these petitions are original defendants in proceedings filed under Section 5 of the Act. In all these cases, the learned Mamlatdar had passed order against the petitioners directing removal of obstruction. The petitioners filed revision applications challenging the respective orders passed against them under Section 23 (2) of the Act. The revision applications are also rejected. The petitioners have approached this Court challenging the orders passed by the Mamlatdar, which in turn, have been confirmed by the revisional authority. The contentions raised by the petitioners are that the provisions of the Act relating to filing and verification of plaint are not followed; the suits are filed beyond limitation; by the impugned orders a new road is created, which is beyond the scope of jurisdiction of the Mamlatdar exercising jurisdiction under the Act; the spot panchanamas on the basis of which the impugned orders are passed are not drawn in accordance with the prescribed procedure and that alternate road is available.

2. In all these matters, the respondents have raised a preliminary objection to maintainability of the petitions on the ground of alternate remedy of filing civil suit. Respondents contend that orders impugned in the present petitions can be assailed by way of civil suit and further that the petitioners can approach the competent civil court to get the rights finally adjudicated and that the orders passed under the Act which are impugned in the present petitions will not come in the way to claim adjudication of the controversy on merits before the civil court once and for all.

3. The submission is elaborated stating that the orders passed under the Act are subject to order/decree to be passed by a civil court. It is argued that the Act does not accord finality to orders passed by Mamlatdar under Section 5 as also to revisional orders passed by the Collector under Section 23 (2) and therefore, the said orders can always be assailed in civil suit. They contend that Section 22 of the Act clearly provides that person in whose favour order under the Act is passed is entitled to derive benefits of the same only until there is decree or order to the contrary by the competent civil court. They, therefore, state that the petitions should not be entertained in view of the alternate remedy. The learned Advocates have placed reliance on the following judgments :-

(i) Rajendra s/o Sheshrao Shendge Vs. Shobhatai w/o Shrirao Ravate and another reported in AIR 2007 Bom. 90, (ii) Mohommad Khan S/o Rahim Khan Vs. Shankar Maroti Dhage and another reported in 2017(3) Mh.L.J. 135, (iii) Digambar and others Vs. Vasant and others reported in

2022(2) Bom. C.R. 154 (iv) Judgment dated 03.07.2025 in the matter of Alka w/o Pandit Ghongade and others passed in Writ Petition No.444/2024 passed at Aurangabad Bench of this Court.

4. Per contra, the learned advocates for the petitioners contend that the orders passed by the authorities under the Act cannot be challenged by filing a civil suit. They contend that Section 23 (1) of the Act bars an appeal from the order passed by the Mamlatdar under the Act. Section 23 (2) of the Act provides that the order pas