As per case facts, the applicant's Rasta Case, allowed by the Tahsildar, led to the respondents (plaintiffs) filing an appeal which was later withdrawn. Subsequently, the respondents filed a civil ... suit challenging the Tahsildar's order. The applicants sought to reject the plaint, arguing it was unmaintainable and time-barred under Section 143 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The Trial Court denied this, prompting the current Civil Revision Application. The question arose whether a party, after choosing and withdrawing an appeal, could file a civil suit challenging the Tahsildar's decision, given that remedies under Section 143 are mutually exclusive and subject to a specific limitation period. Finally, the High Court held that once a remedy under the Code is chosen, it must be pursued to its logical conclusion, and withdrawing an appeal does not permit a subsequent civil suit. The court found the suit also barred by the one-year limitation under Section 143(4), which supersedes the general Limitation Act, 1963. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the plaint was ordered to be rejected.