37-cra613-2024.docx IN THE HIGH 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 post-Walwa, Tal-Walwa, Dist. Sangali 3 Ashpak Nazir Valandkar Age: 52 years, Occ: Farmer Residing at: At post Walwa, Tal. Walwa Dist. Sangali … Applicants V/s. 1 Gunga Kisan Patil (Khabale) Age: 41 years, Occ- Farmer Residing at: Khed, Tal. Shirala, Dist, Sangali 2 Bajrang Kisan Patil (Khabale) Age: 36 years, Occ-Farmer Residing at: Khed, Tal. Shirala, Dist. Sangali 3 Aananda Kisan Patil (Khabale) Age: 35 years, Occ- Farmer Residing at: Khed, Tal. Shirala, Dist. Sangali 4 Sunanda Rangrav Patil (Khabale) VRJ 1 of 7 VAIBHAV RAMESH JADHAV Digitally signed by VAIBHAV RAMESH JADHAV Date: 2026.10.15 19:02:46 +0530 37-cra613-2024.docx Age 42 years, Occ: Housewife Residing at: Khed, Tal. Shirala, Dist. Sangali 5 Vaishali Sandip Desai Age: years, Occ: Housewife Residing at: Khed, Tal. Shirala, Dist. Sangali 6 Savita Vinayak Patil Age: 38 years, Occ: Housewife Residing at: Khed, Tal. Shirala, Dist. Sangali 7 Vidya Chandrakant Mane Age: 42 years, Occ: Housewife Residing at: Khed, Tal. Shirala, Dist. Sangali 8 Shital Rangrav Patil Age: 50 years, Occ: Housewife Residing at: Khed, Tal. Shirala, Dist. Sangali 9 Chaitrali Rangrav Patil Age: years, Occ: Housewife Residing at: Khed, Tal. Shirala, Dist. Sangali 10 Aakaram Yashwant Patil Age: 56 years, Occ: Farmer Residing at: Khed, Tal. Shirala, Dist. Sangali 11 Shrimati Shakuntala Bhimrao Patil Age: 52 years, Occ: Housewife Residing at: Khed, Tal. Shirala, Dist. Sangali 12 Sadashiv Bhimrao Patil VRJ 2 of 7 37-cra613-2024.docx Age:46 years, Occ: Farmer Residing at: Khed, Tal. Shirala, Dist. Sangali 13 Pramila Baburao Yavatkar Age: 41 years, Occ: Housewife Residing at: Khed, Tal. Shirala, Dist. Sangali 14 Sunanda Haousrao Patil Age: 42 years, Occ: Housewife Residing at: Khed, Tal. Shirala, Dist. Sangali 15 Pradeep Haouserao Patil Age:41 years, Occ: Farmer Residing at: Khed, Tal. Shirala, Dist. Sangali 16 Maruti Haousrao Patil Age: 40 years, Occ: Farmer Residing at: Khed, Tal. Shirala, Dist. Sangali 17 Uday Vasant Patil Age:36 years, Occ: Farmer Residing at: Khed, Tal. Shirala, Dist. Sangali 18 Mahindra Vasant Patil Age:32 years, Occ: Farmer Residing at: Khed, Tal. Shirala, Dist. Sangali 19 Balu Urf Hambirrao Yashwant Patil Age:48 years, Occ: Farmer Residing at: Khed, Tal. Shirala, Dist. Sangali 20 Prakash Rangrav Patil Age: years, Occ: Farmer VRJ 3 of 7 37-cra613-2024.docx Residing at: Khed, Tal. Shirala, Dist. Sangali 21 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 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 7 37-cra613-2024.docx 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 7 37-cra613-2024.docx 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 7 37-cra613-2024.docx 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 7