Appeal or Civil Suit? Bombay High Court Clarifies Section 143 MLRC Remidies.

⚖️Case Study: Dipak Chandrabhan Gadhade/Gavande v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

📌2026:BHC-AUG:6216 | Civil Revision Application No. 196 of 2025
🏛️Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench)
📋Coram: Justice Shailesh P. Brahme
📅Decided on: 12 February 2026

📜Factual Background

The dispute concerned a right of way (Rasta) between adjoining agricultural lands situated at Kaudgaon Athare, Taluka Pathardi, District Ahmednagar. The applicant owned Gat No.106, whereas the respondents occupied Gat Nos.120, 121, and 122. The applicant instituted Rasta Case No.24 of 2020 under Section 143 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (MLRC). The Tahsildar, by order dated 15.02.2023, recognized the applicant’s easementary right of way and restrained obstruction by the respondents. Aggrieved respondents preferred RTS Appeal No.79 of 2023 before the Sub-Divisional Officer. Subsequently, they withdrew the appeal and filed Regular Civil Suit No.525 of 2024 challenging the Tahsildar’s order.

🧩Legal Issues

1. Whether a party who has already availed the statutory appellate remedy under Section 247 MLRC can subsequently institute a civil suit under Section 143(4) challenging the Tahsildar’s order.
2. Whether the remedies of appeal and civil suit under Section 143 MLRC are mutually exclusive.
3. Whether the civil suit filed more than one year after the Tahsildar’s decision was barred by limitation under Section 143(4) MLRC.
4. Whether the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 could be invoked for exclusion of time spent in appellate proceedings.

📃Contentions of the Parties

📌Applicant (Defendant)

• The respondents had already invoked the appellate remedy under Section 247 MLRC and therefore could not subsequently file a civil suit.
• The remedies under Section 143 MLRC are alternative and mutually exclusive.
• The suit filed on 28.06.2024 against the Tahsildar’s order dated 15.02.2023 was beyond the one-year limitation prescribed under Section 143(4) MLRC.
• The plaint was therefore liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

📌Respondents (Plaintiffs)

• Limitation should be governed by Articles 58 and 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and not strictly by Section 143(4) MLRC.
• The cause of action continued and limitation should be reckoned from the appellate proceedings.
• A party has the option either to pursue an appeal or file a civil suit.
• Time spent prosecuting RTS Appeal No.79 of 2023 should be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

📚Case Laws Discussed

1. State of Rajasthan v. Union of India & Others, (2018) 12 SCC 83

The Supreme Court applied the Doctrine of Election, holding that where two remedies are available, a litigant who chooses one remedy cannot pursue the other for the same relief and cause of action.

2. Jagannath Ramu Mane & Ors. v. Shree Ram Bharma Bandgar & Ors., Writ Petition No.6340 of 2022, decided on 30.11.2023

Held that remedies under Section 143 MLRC, namely appeal and civil suit, are mutually exclusive. Once an appeal is preferred, the aggrieved party cannot subsequently challenge the Tahsildar’s decision through a civil suit.

3. Sanjay Kerba Kadam & Anr. v. Manchak Kondiba Kadam & Ors., Civil Revision Application No.126 of 2022, decided on 08.03.2023

The Court held that once a party chooses a remedy under Section 247 MLRC, that remedy must be pursued to its logical conclusion and a subsequent suit challenging the Tahsildar’s order may not be maintainable.

4. Jarasand S/o Suryabhan Borkar v. Bhagwat S/o Suryakant Kale & Others, Civil Revision Application No.146 of 2022

Relied upon by the respondents. The High Court distinguished the decision on facts and held that it was not applicable to the present controversy.

5. Adani Power Ltd. & Another v. Union of India & Others, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 11

Found distinguishable on facts and not helpful to the respondents.

6. Kirpal Singh v. Government of India, New Delhi & Ors., 2025(2) ALD 165

Relied upon regarding exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The Court held the decision arose in the context of arbitration proceedings and was distinguishable.

7. Prof. Sumer Chand v. Union of India & Others, (1994) 1 SCC 64

The Supreme Court held that where a special law prescribes a specific period of limitation, such special limitation prevails over the Limitation Act by virtue of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act.

🔎Observations of the High Court

• Section 143 MLRC provides two alternative remedies against the Tahsildar’s order: appeal/revision under the Code or a civil suit under Section 143(4).
• These remedies are mutually exclusive, and once a litigant elects one remedy, the other stands barred.
• The respondents had already chosen the appellate remedy under Section 247 MLRC and could not subsequently maintain a civil suit after withdrawing the appeal.
• The limitation prescribed in Section 143(4) MLRC is a special statutory limitation of one year and overrides the general provisions of the Limitation Act.
• The suit filed on 28.06.2024 against the order dated 15.02.2023 was clearly beyond one year and therefore barred by limitation.
• Section 14 of the Limitation Act could not be invoked to save the suit where the special statute itself governs limitation.

📝Conclusion / Final Decision

The Bombay High Court held that:

• The respondents, having elected to pursue the statutory appellate remedy, could not thereafter file a civil suit challenging the same Tahsildar’s decision.
• The suit was barred by limitation under Section 143(4) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.
• The Trial Court erred in refusing rejection of the plaint.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Civil Revision Application, quashed the impugned order dated 30.07.2025, and directed that the plaint in Regular Civil Suit No.525 of 2024 shall stand rejected.

💡Key Takeaway

Under Section 143 MLRC, the remedies of statutory appeal and civil suit are alternative and mutually exclusive. Once a party elects to challenge the Tahsildar’s order through appeal, it cannot subsequently institute a civil suit. Further, the one-year limitation prescribed under Section 143(4) MLRC prevails over the Limitation Act as a special statutory limitation.

🔖 Hashtags

#BombayHighCourt #MLRC #Section143MLRC #RightOfWay #RastaCase #DoctrineOfElection #LimitationLaw #CivilProcedure #RevenueLaw #CaseStudy #LegalUpdate

📌 Official Copy of judgement 👇