906-SA-214-2026.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 214 OF 2026 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1471 OF 2026 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 214 OF 2026 Appa Bhimrao Rakshe Age 63 years, Occ.: Agri, R/o. Bahirewadi, Tal Ajara District- Kolhapur ...Appellant (Orig. Plaintiff) Versus 1. Shivaji Bapu Powar Age 68 years, Occ.: Agri, 2. Sambhaji Bapu Powar Age 63 years, Occ.: Agri, 3. Kedari Bapu Powar Age 66 years, Occ.: Agri, 4. Maruti Bapu Powar Age 61 years, Occ.: Agri, All R/o. Bahirewadi, Tal-Ajara, Dist-Kolhapur. ...Respondents (Orig. Defendants) ------ Mr. Shashank Mangale with Ashitosh Jambilkar, Prajakta Kamble, Omkar Korutkar and Shubham Gangan i/by Sagar Mane, Advocate for the Appellant. Arjun 1 ARJUN KRISHNA RODGE Digitally signed by ARJUN KRISHNA RODGE Date: 2026.10.03 12:25:04 +0530 906-SA-214-2026.docx ------- CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. DATE : 1st October 2026. ORAL ORDER: 1. Heard Mr. Shashank Mangale, learned Advocate for the Appellant. 2. By this Second Appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the Appellant assails the Judgment and Decree dated 05.02.2026 (“Impugned Judgment”), passed by the District Judge-1, Gadhinglaj (“Appellate Court”), in Regular Civil Appeal No. 47 of 2023, which reversed the Judgment and Decree dated 25.09.2023, passed by the Civil Judge Junior Division, Ajara, District Kolhapur (“Trial Court”) in Regular Civil Suit No. 35 of 2015, which decreed the Regular Civil Suit No. 35 of 2015 filed by the Appellant. 3. The Appellant is the Plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 35 of 2015 and the Respondents are the Defendants. 4. Mr. Shashank Mangale, learned Advocate for the Appellant, submits that the Regular Civil Suit No. 35 of 2015, filed by the Appellant, was a suit simpliciter for an injunction. He further submits that the Appellate Court reversed the Trial Court's decree on two grounds: (i) that the suit property was the subject matter of dispute in a pending Regular Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002, and therefore, according to the Appellate Court, the issue of lis pendens arose; and (ii) that the permission dated 14.7.2004, under Section 43 of the Maharashtra Arjun 2 906-SA-214-2026.docx Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (“M.T.A.L. Act”), granted for execution of the Sale Deed bearing No.1006 of 2004 dated 15.07.2004 (Exhibit-45), was subsequently cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Officer in proceedings bearing No. 798 of 2004 vide Order dated 23.11.2005. 5. Mr. 5. Mr. Shashank Mangale, learned Advocate for the Appellant, submits that the conclusion of the Appellate Court with regard to the issue of lis pendens was factually incorrect, as the Regular Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002 was dismissed on 04.04.2007. Thus, the issue of lis pendens did not arise. 6. With reference to the issue relating to the Sale Deed dated 15.07.2004, Mr. Shashank Mangale, learned Advocate for the Appellant, submits that the sale of the suit property was backed by the required prior permission under Section 43 of the M.T.A.L. Act. To clarify, he submits that the permission was granted on 14.07.2004 and the sale was executed on 15.07.2004. 7. Mr. Shashank Mangale, learned Advocate for the Appellant, submits that the permission dated 14.07.2004 was subsequently cancelled on 23.11.2005. He further submits that if the said permission dated 14.07.2004 is restored, the Sale Deed dated 15.07.2004 would be valid. 8. Mr. Shashank Mangale, learned Advocate for the Appellant, submits that the Appellant did not take any steps against the Order dated 23.11.2005, on the belief that once the parties had acted upon the permission dated 14.07.2004 Arjun 3 906-SA-214-2026.docx by executing the Sale Deed dated 15.07.2004, the said permission could not be cancelled. He submits that the Appellant bonafide believed that upon the decree in Regular Civil Suit No. 35 of 2015, the Order dated 23.11.2005 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer was not required to be challenged. He further submits that the Sale Deed dated 15.07.2004 is not cancelled even as on date. The Appellant has now realised and has been advised that the Order dated 23.11.2005 needs to be challenged. 9. Mr. Shashank Mangale, learned Advocate for the Appellant, states that the Appellant has two recourses available: First is to challenge the Order dated 23.11.2005, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer in proceedings bearing No. 798 of 2004, by filing appropriate proceedings, and Second, to take recourse to the provisions of Section 84C of M.T.A.L. Act. He submits that if the Appellant is able to restore the permission dated 14.07.2004 or secure an order under Section 84C of the M.T.A.L. Act, the Sale Deed dated 15.07.2004 would be validated and the Appellant's rights in the suit property restored. 10. Mr. Shashank Mangale, learned Advocate for the Appellant, states that the Appellant is present in Court. He identifies the Appellant and on the instructions from the Appellant, seeks leave to withdraw this Second Appeal with liberty to take appropriate steps available to the Appellant in terms of law, particularly those referred to in paragraph No. 9 hereinabove. 11. In view of the statement made by Mr. Shashank Mangale, learned Arjun 4 906-SA-214-2026.docx Advocate for the Appellant, leave is granted to withdraw this Second Appeal with liberty as prayed. 12. Needless to mention, if the Appellant files fresh proceedings, then the same would have to be considered on its own merit and in accordance with law. 13. All contentions of the parties are left open. 14. Second Appeal No. 214 of 2026, is disposed of as withdrawn. 15. In view of the disposal of the Second Appeal, nothing survives in Interim Application No. 1471 of 2026, and the application is accordingly disposed of. (ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) Arjun 5