37. IA 6496-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6496 OF 2026 IN REVIEW PETITION NO. 113 OF 2026 IN WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 5045 OF 2026 Sawant Sadan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. .Applicant IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN Sawant Sadan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. .Review Petitioner/ (Ori.Res.No.5) Vs. Parag Chandrakant Sawant & ors. .Respondents Mr. Y. S. Bhate @ Mr. Viraaj Y. Bhate i/b. Bhate & Associates, Advocates, for the Applicant/Review Petitioner Mr. Sandesh Deshpande, Advocate, for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : 03.09.2026 P. C. 1. At the outset, Mr. Bhate persuades the Court to consider granting the Interim Application, since there is a delay of 122 days in filing the Review Petition. The Interim Application stands allowed in view of the reasons stated therein subject to the Review Petition being heard forthwith. Mr. Bhate agrees to the same and argues the Review Petition forthwith. In that view of the matter, the Interim Application stands allowed and the delay of 122 days in filing the Review Petition stands Anand 1 of 5 ANAND SUDHAKAR SUDAME Digitally signed by ANAND SUDHAKAR SUDAME Date: 2026.09.08 10:40:58 +0530 37. IA 6496-2026.doc condoned. 2. The Review Petition is taken up for hearing forthwith. The prayer in the Review Petition is for review, re-call and modification of the orders dated 05.0.3026 and 07.04.2026. The order dated 05.03.2026 is appended at page 31 of the Review Petition. The order dated 07.04.2026 is a consequential order regarding some typographical corrections to be made in the previous order with regard to the nomenclature of the suit proceeding number which has been reflected therein. Essentially, the order under Review is 05.03.2026. According to Mr. Bhate, his first submission is that without issuing notices to the private Respondents in the Writ Petition, this Court has committed an error apparent on the face of record by determining the Writ Petition. What is determined by virtue of the order dated 05.03.2026 is, in fact, a direction to the learned Trial Court to dispose of the pending suit proceeding since 2019 expeditiously and nothing more. In effect, the Writ Petition was never determined at all. In such scenario, there was no reason or question of notices to be issued to the private Respondents. This ground is as innocuous as possible on the face of record. Be that as it may. The aforesaid submission is attempted to be made along with the argument that the private Respondents had succeeded in revision proceedings before the Minister and therefore, by Anand 2 of 5 37. IA 6496-2026.doc virtue of that revision order, the private Respondents’ names were mutated in the revenue record and they are the owners of the property. By virtue of the Writ Petition, this Court has not attempted to touch the said mutation entry and its legality. The right of the Petitioners in the Writ Petition has been exercised by filing a Civil Suit for title in the year 2019. The said suit is pending since then. What was argued before me in the Writ Petition was that this Court should intervene because prima facie, there was a delay on the part of the private Respondents in approaching the Superintendent of Land Records for carrying out and seeking the mutation entries. Though the facts have been specifically noted in paragraph No. 3, this Court has refrained from exercising any authority or right qua the substantive rights of the parties much less the Applicants in the Interim Application. When it was brought to the notice of the Court that the Petitioners in the Writ Petition had already filed a Civil Suit with regard to entitlement and title of the subject property, the only order that could be passed without touching the merits of the RTS Case was to direct expeditious disposal of the said Civil Suit. Though Mr. Bhate would argue across the bar that the Civil Suit filed by the Petitioners before the Civil Court is on the basis of a probate which was obtained by them on the ground that they were the legatees of the original owner, I have not countenanced that or opined Anand 3 of 5 37. IA 6496-2026.doc on that. The same would undoubtedly be decided in the Civil Suit. The order dated 05.03.2026, prima facie, records that mutation entries do not confirm or establish title of the parties in whose name they are standing and that they are, essentially, made for fiscal purposes and to give effect to revenue record. That is the trite law. It is also specifically stated therein that such mutation entry be it in the name of any party would undoubtedly be subject to the outcome of the title suit which was pending and therefore, the only direction given in paragraph No. 5 of the order was to dispose of the suit within a time bound programme considering that the suit was pending for the past more than seven years. Mr. Bhate has argued across the bar today that such a direction is unwarranted especially, when the private Respondents in the Writ Petition had succeeded in revision proceedings in mutating their name in the revenue record. He would, therefore, persuade the Court to re- call and review the order dated 05.03.2026. 3. In view of my aforesaid observations, the submissions made by Mr. Bhate are unfortunately innocuous and unmeritorious. The submission that this Court should hear the private Respondents and upholdthe Revision order and ought not to have passed the order dated 05.03.2026 to determine the Civil Suit in a time bound programme cannot be countenanced at all and that is why I do not agree with Anand 4 of 5 37. IA 6496-2026.doc Mr. Bhate. Filing this Review Petition is nothing but a sheer abuse of the due process of law, as there is no error apparent whatsoever found in the order dated 05.03.2026. The said order, in fact, categorically states that all parties to the suit proceeding shall be at liberty to apply to the competent authority on the basis of the final order that would be passed in the suit proceedings for mutation and after the suit is adjudicated and disposed of by the learned Trial Court. To file a review and suggest to the Court that the private Respondents’ suit proceedings should not be even looked at by the Court especially when a title suit is filed and pending and primary be given to RTS proceedings and orders therein is something which cannot be countenanced by the Court. In that view of the matter, the present Review Petition stands expressly dismissed. 4. Though I was inclined to award costs, however since the review Petitioner before me is a Co-operative Housing Society comprising of 12 members and Mr. Bhate has been a very good officer of this Court, no order as to costs. 5. Review Petition is dismissed. (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.) Anand 5 of 5