Bombay High Court Examines Petitioner in Mamlatdar's Courts Act Interim Injunction Challenge — No Final Decision in Available Text. The Court considered whether Mamlatdar had power under Section 5(2) of Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906 to grant temporary injunction and whether Order XXXIX Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applied, but the extracted judgment ends at Paragraph 11 without recording a verdict.

Writ petition challenging interim injunction order passed by Mamlatdar under Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906 and its affirmance in revision.

Petitioner sought to quash and set aside order dated 10/6/2021 of Mamlatdar granting temporary interim injunction to open the way and order dated 12/7/2021 in Revision under Section 23 of M.C. Act, 1906 dismissing the revision, on ground of lack of jurisdiction.

The Mamlatdar granted interim injunction directing petitioner to make open the way in a suit under Section 5 of Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906; petitioner's revision was dismissed; hence the writ petition alleging absence of power to grant interim relief.

Mamlatdar's order dated 10/6/2021 granted temporary interim injunction; Revisional Authority dismissed revision by order dated 12/7/2021 maintaining the interim order.

Whether the Mamlatdar under the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906 has the power to grant temporary/interim injunction in proceedings under Section 5 of the Act. Whether the powers under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are available to the Mamlatdar's Court in the absence of an adopting provision.

Petitioner contended that Mamlatdar lacks any power to grant interim relief under the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906 because the Act contains no provision for temporary injunctions; reliance on Sanjay s/o Dinkar Kulkarni v. Shankarappa s/o Ganappa Pasarakar. Respondent nos.1 and 2 argued that Section 5(2) of the Act expressly confers power to issue injunctions and Section 5(1)(b)'s expression 'immediate possession' indicates power to grant interim relief; also argued Mamlatdar's Court has all civil court attributes and inherent powers, relying on Manohar Lal Chopra and Ashok Devman Gangurde, Lala Dagadu Kale, etc. Respondent no.3 submitted that Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is later statute but M.C. Act does not adopt CPC, so Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 are not available. Respondent nos.5 and 6 (State) submitted that M.C. Act, 1906 is a complete code, strict construction, no importation of CPC powers; reliance on State of Kerala v. Mathai Verghese.

The writ petition raises a challenge to the order passed by the learned Mamlatdar, in proceedings initiated before him under the provisions of Section 5 of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906... Mr. Amit Kukday, learned Counsel for the petitioner, raises an interesting question, by contending, that under the provisions of the M.C. Act, 1906, the Mamlatdar does not have any power to grant any interim relief of any nature whatsoever. The M.C. Act, 1906 was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to the powers and procedures of Mamlatdar’s Courts and was brought into force with effect from 29/10/1906.

Respondent no.1 filed proceedings under Section 5 of Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906 before the Mamlatdar; Mamlatdar passed order dated 10/6/2021 granting temporary interim injunction directing petitioner to make open the way; petitioner filed Revision under Section 23 of the Act, which was dismissed by order dated 12/7/2021; petitioner then filed Writ Petition No.2713/2021 before the High Court.

• Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906: 5, 5(1)(a), 5(1)(b), 5(2), 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 15(2), 16, 16(1), 18, 19, 19(2), 21, 21(2), 22, 23, 23(3), Schedule-C Form
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order XXXIX Rule 2, Order VII Rule 11(a) to (f), Section 11
• Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948: 67(2), 69(1), 68, 69, 70, 72