39-WP11173-2026.DOC Santosh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11173 OF 2026 Kailas Shamrao Dhokle And Ors ...Petitioners Versus The Sub Divisional Officer Pune Sub Division And Ors …Respondents Mr. Ganesh Bhujbal, a/w Tushar Nikam, for the Petitioners. Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, Addl. GP, a/w G. R. Raghuwanshi, AGP for the State. CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED: 31st AUGUST, 2026 Oral Order:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 8th June, 2026, passed by the Tahsildar, under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred revision application before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pune, and vide communication dated 12th August, 2026, the Sub- Divisional Officer (R1) declined to entertain the revision application on the ground that the petitioners were not the party to the proceedings under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906 before the Tahsildar. 1/3 SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Digitally signed by SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Date: 2026.09.02 10:02:30 +0530 39-WP11173-2026.DOC 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer ought to have examined the issue whether the petitioners can be said to be aggrieved persons and then decided the question of maintainability of the revision at the instance of the petitioners. Prima facie, it does not appear that the Sub-Divisional Officer had delved into the aspect as to whether the petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the Tahsildar on 8th June, 2026, and declined to entertain the revision only on the ground that the petitioners were not parties to the proceedings before the Tahsildar. 5. Thus, the matter is required to be relegated back to the Sub-Divisional Officer to decide the question of entertainability of the revision against the order dated 8th June, 2026 at the instance of the petitioners afresh and pass a reasoned order. 6. The petition, thus, stands disposed in the following terms: (i) The communication dated 12th August, 2026 stands quashed and set aside. (ii) The Sub-Divisional Officer is requested to hear and decide the aspect of the maintainability of the revision against the order dated 8th June, 2026 at the instance of the petitioners afresh after providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties, as expeditiously as possible 2/3 39-WP11173-2026.DOC (iii) The petitioners shall appear before the Sub-Divisional Officer on 7th September, 2026. (iv) The Sub-Divisional Officer is requested to decide the issue of tenablity of the revision application as expeditiously as possible and, preferably, within a period of four weeks from 7th September, 2026. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] 3/3