Bombay High Court
CRA/613/2024 of MOHAN KASHINATH MADANE AND OTHERS Vs GUNGA KISAN PATIL (KHABALE) AND OTHERS on 15 October 2026
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 613 OF 2024 1 Mohan Kashinath Madane Age: years, Occ: Farmer Residing at: Peth, Tal. Walwa, Dist. Sangali 2 Nilam Nazir Valandkar Age: 46 years, Occ: Farmer Residing at: At
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 613 OF 2024
Mohan Kashinath Madane
Age: years, Occ: Farmer
Residing at: Peth, Tal. Walwa, Dist. Sangali
Nilam Nazir Valandkar
Age: 46 years, Occ: Farmer
Residing at: At post-Walwa, Tal-Walwa,
Dist. Sangali
Ashpak Nazir Valandkar
Age: 52 years, Occ: Farmer
Residing at: At post Walwa, Tal. Walwa
Dist. Sangali
… Applicants
V/s.
Gunga Kisan Patil (Khabale)
Age: 41 years, Occ- Farmer
Residing at: Khed, Tal. Shirala, Dist, Sangali
Bajrang Kisan Patil (Khabale)
Age: 36 years, Occ-Farmer
Residing at: Khed, Tal. Shirala, Dist. Sangali
Aananda Kisan Patil (Khabale)
Age: 35 years, Occ- Farmer
Residing at: Khed, Tal. Shirala, Dist. Sangali
Sunanda Rangrav Patil (Khabale)
VRJ
1 of
Age 42 years, Occ: Housewife
Residing at: Khed, Tal. Shirala, Dist. Sangali
Vaishali Sandip Desai
Age: years, Occ: Housewife
Residing at: Khed, Tal. Shirala, Dist. Sangali
Savita Vinayak Patil
Age: 38 years, Occ: Housewife
Residing at: Khed, Tal. Shirala, Dist. Sangali
Vidya Chandrakant Mane
Age: 42 years, Occ: Housewife
Residing at: Khed, Tal. Shirala, Dist. Sangali
Shital Rangrav Patil
Age: 50 years, Occ: Housewife
Residing at: Khed, Tal. Shirala, Dist. Sangali
Chaitrali Rangrav Patil
Age: years, Occ: Housewife
Residing at: Khed, Tal. Shirala, Dist. Sangali
Aakaram Yashwant Patil
Age: 56 years, Occ: Farmer
Residing at: Khed, Tal. Shirala, Dist. Sangali
Shrimati Shakuntala Bhimrao Patil
Age: 52 years, Occ: Housewife
Residing at: Khed, Tal. Shirala, Dist. Sangali
Sadashiv Bhimrao Patil
VRJ
2 of
Age:46 years, Occ: Farmer
Residing at: Khed, Tal. Shirala, Dist. Sangali
Pramila Baburao Yavatkar
Age: 41 years, Occ: Housewife
Residing at: Khed, Tal. Shirala, Dist. Sangali
Sunanda Haousrao Patil
Age: 42 years, Occ: Housewife
Residing at: Khed, Tal. Shirala, Dist. Sangali
Pradeep Haouserao Patil
Age:41 years, Occ: Farmer
Residing at: Khed, Tal. Shirala, Dist. Sangali
Maruti Haousrao Patil
Age: 40 years, Occ: Farmer
Residing at: Khed, Tal. Shirala, Dist. Sangali
Uday Vasant Patil
Age:36 years, Occ: Farmer
Residing at: Khed, Tal. Shirala, Dist. Sangali
Mahindra Vasant Patil
Age:32 years, Occ: Farmer
Residing at: Khed, Tal. Shirala, Dist. Sangali
Balu Urf Hambirrao Yashwant Patil
Age:48 years, Occ: Farmer
Residing at: Khed, Tal. Shirala, Dist. Sangali
Prakash Rangrav Patil
Age: years, Occ: Farmer
VRJ
3 of
Residing at: Khed, Tal. Shirala, Dist. Sangali
Sadashiv Kisan Patil (Khabale)
Age: 30 years, Occ: Farmer
Residing at: Khed, Tal. Shirala, Dist. Sangali … Respondents Ms. Neha Deshpande with N. G. Kamble i/by Ms. Gargi U.
Warunjikar for the Applicants.
Mr. Shekhar Jagtap (through V.C.) with Mr. Sanket Khandagale i/by J. Shekhar Associate for the Respondents.
-------
CORAM
: ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
DATED
: OCTOBER 15, 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL JUDGMENT:-
1. Heard, Ms. Neha Deshpande, learned Advocate for the Applicants and Mr. Shekhar Jagtap, learned Advocate for the Respondents.
2. By this Application filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Applicants assail the Order dated 19th October 2024 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shirala (“Trial Court”) in Regular Civil Suit No. 120 of 2024, which rejected the Application at Exhibit- 20 filed by the Applicants under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“impugned judgment”). VRJ 4 of
3. Applicants are the Defendants, whereas the Respondents are the Plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No. 120 of 2024.
4. The material facts relevant to the adjudication of this Application are that the Respondents instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 120 of 2024 before the Trial Court. The suit pleads that the Respondents are tenants of the suit property (Gat No. 336 situated at Mauje Khed, Taluka Shirala, District Sangli) and that the Applicants, who have now stepped into the shoes of the landlords, are interfering with their possession.
5. The Applicants filed an Application at Exhibit-20 in Regular Civil Suit No. 120 of 2024, seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on the ground that the suit filed by the Respondents is barred under Section 85 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (“said Act”). The Respondents opposed the Application at Exhibit-20.
6. By impugned order, the Trial Court rejected the Application at Exhibit
20.
7. Ms. Neha Deshpande, learned Advocate for the Applicants, submits that on a bare reading of the plaint, i.e. without any addition or subtraction of the averments, the suit filed by the Plaintiffs is clearly barred in view of Section 85 of the said Act. She submits that the Trial Court failed to consider VRJ 5 of this aspect, which goes to the root of the matter and consequently erred in passing the impugned order. By referring to the impugned order, she submits that the Trial Court exercised its jurisdiction perversely.
8. Mr. Shekhar Jagtap, learned Advocate for the Respondents, in all fairness, submits that the Respondents' case before the Trial Court is that they are tenants and that the interference with their possession is at the instance of the Applicants, who have stepped into the shoes of their predecessor-in- title, that is, the landlords of the suit property.
9. Mr. Shekhar Jagtap, learned Advocate for the Respondents, does not contest the law on Section 85 of the said Act. He, therefore, on instructions from the Respondents, seeks leave to withdraw Regular Civil Suit No. 120 of 2024, with liberty to file appropriate proceedings as may be available under the said Act.
10. Ms. Neha Deshpande, learned Advocate for the Applicants, submits that the Applicants have no objection to the Respondents-Plaintiffs withdrawing the suit and if entitled in law, to pursuing their remedies under the said Act. However, she requests that all the Applicants' contentions on merits and maintainability, in the event the Respondents file any proceedings under the Act, be left open.
11. Based on the statement made by Mr. Shekhar Jagtap, learned Advocate VRJ 6 of for the Respondents-Plaintiffs and the no objection given by Ms. Neha Deshpande, learned Advocate for the Applicants, the request made by Mr. Shekhar Jagtap, learned Advocate for the Respondents, is accepted. Leave is granted to the Respondents to withdraw the Regular Civil Suit No. 120 of 2024, with liberty to file proceedings, if available, under the said Act. Consequently, Regular Civil Suit No. 120 of 2024, filed by the Respondents, stands dismissed as withdrawn. The proceedings of Regular Civil Suit No. 120 of 2024 before the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shirala, are closed.
12. All the contentions of the parties, including the issue of maintainability of such proceedings, are expressly left open for consideration before the Competent Authority if the Respondents choose to file any such proceedings under the said Act.
13. Civil Revision Application No. 613 of 2024 is disposed of in the above terms.
(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) VRJ 7 of