DNYANDEO AND ORS. Vs. RASKAUR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri N.B. Kalwaghe, the learned advocate for the petitioners, Shri T.B. Pantawane, the learned advocate for respondents 1(ii) to 1(vii), Shri N.R. Patil, the learned A.G.P. for respondent No. 2 and Shri Shrikant Saoji, the learned advocate for respondents 4(i) to 4(vi).

(2.) THE petition takes exception to the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, answering the point as to whether Namdeo was an Agriculturist or not, in proceedings arising out of reference under the provisions of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (for short "Act of 1958").

(3.) HOWEVER , certain events have taken place which have direct bearing on the adjudication of this writ petition. Though this writ petition has been pending, the parties to the Regular Civil Suit No. 126/1984 had not brought to the notice of the Civil Court the pendency of this writ petition before this Court and it was represented that the issue referred by the Civil Court for decision as to whether Namdeo was an Agriculturist on 25th October, 1977 has been finally decided by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The Civil Court accordingly proceeded with the Regular Civil Suit No. 126/1984 and dismissed the civil suit by the judgment dated 5th October, 1998. The respondent No. 1 had filed appeal before the District Court challenging the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The appeal was allowed on 15th February, 1999 and the suit filed by the respondent No. 1 came to be decreed. The judgment and decree passed by the District Court was challenged before this Court in Second Appeal No. 137/1999 which came to be dismissed on 17th November, 2000. The petitioners had challenged the judgment passed by this Court in Second Appeal No. 137/1999 in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 1477/2001 which came to be dismissed on 1st October, 2001. The petitioners filed Review Application vide M.C.A. Stamp No. 22169/2001 before this Court seeking review of the judgment passed in Second Appeal No. 137/1999. As there was delay in filing the review application, an application vide C.A. No. 6315/2001 was also filed praying for condonation of delay. This Court by the order dated 19th January, 2007 dismissed the Civil Application No. 6315/2001 praying for condonation of delay and consequently disposed of the review application.