cra165.26 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 924 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 165 OF 2026 Kuber Mega Structure and another VERSUS State of Maharashtra Thru. Collector and others ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Shri Sanjeev Deshpande, senior advocate i/b Ms. Priyanka A. Deshpande a/w Sandeep Rebari and Mr. C. R. Deshpande AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2: Mrs. Vaishali P. Dama ….. CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. DATED : 24th SEPTEMBER, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. This revision is preferred against the order passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalna below Exh.28 in Regular Civil Suit No. 823 of 2025, dated 07.05.2026. It was application under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the Civil Procedure Code 1908. 2. Learned senior counsel for the applicants submitted that the order passed by the learned trial court is illegal and not sustainable. He pointed out the reasons in the impugned order and submitted that the learned trial court failed to appreciate the case law in Fatima Joao vs. Village Panchayat of Merces and another, 2001 (2) B.C.J. 141. He pointed out the reasons recorded in paragraph 11 of 2026:BHC-AUG:44056 cra165.26 -2- the said order and submitted that, when an equally efficacious remedy is available under the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906, the plaintiff cannot file a civil suit for removal of obstruction, encroachment, etc. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order be set aside and the present revision application be allowed by rejecting the plaint. 3. Learned A.G.P. for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 strongly opposed the application and submitted that when there are multiple remedies one cannot sue the remedy which he institute. It is submitted that the reasons and findings of the trial court are legal and correct and no interference is warranted. 4. On perusal of the plaint as well as the grounds raised in the application alongwith the reasons and findings in the impugned order, this Court found that when multiple remedies under various Acts are available, the plaintiff being dominus litis may proceed as per the provisions of Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, under Section 143 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 or by filing civil suit under section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for removal of encroachment on the road, as alleged by the plaintiff in the plaint. 5. In view of the above, there is no substance in the objection cra165.26 -3- raised in the revision application. The revision application therefore, deserves to be dismissed in limine. The Revision is accordingly, dismissed. (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) rlj/