Facts: The applicant and respondents were embroiled in a dispute regarding an easementary right of way to access their respective agricultural lands. The applicant filed Rasta Case No.24 of 2020 under Section 143 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (the Code) before the Tahsildar, which was allowed on 15.02.2023. Aggrieved, the respondents (original plaintiffs) first preferred a statutory appeal (RTS Appeal No.79 of 2023) before the Sub-Divisional Officer. While the appeal was pending, and after their interim application was rejected, they filed Regular Civil Suit No.525 of 2024 on 28.06.2024 to challenge the Tahsildar's order. They eventually withdrew the statutory appeal on 20.08.2024. The applicant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC (Exhibit-19) for rejection of the plaint, arguing the suit was barred by limitation and the doctrine of election.Procedural Posture: The Trial Court rejected the applicant's Exhibit-19 application on 30.07.2025, refusing to dismiss the suit. The applicant subsequently moved the High Court via this Civil Revision Application challenging the Trial Court's refusal to reject the plaint.Issue: Whether a civil suit challenging a Tahsildar’s order under Section 143 of the Code is maintainable after the party has already elected and pursued the alternative remedy of a statutory appeal, and whether such a suit is barred if filed beyond the one-year limitation period prescribed in the special statute.Holding: The High Court held that the suit was not maintainable and was barred by limitation. The Revision Application was allowed, the Trial Court's order was quashed, and the plaint was rejected.Reasoning: The Court reasoned that Section 143 of the Code provides two mutually exclusive remedies: a statutory appeal under Section 247 or a civil suit under Section 143(4). Under the "Doctrine of Election", once a party chooses one path and pursues it, they cannot fallback on the other. Furthermore, Section 143(4) specifically mandates that a civil suit must be instituted within one year from the date of the Tahsildar’s decision. Since the Tahsildar’s order was dated 15.02.2023 and the suit was filed on 28.06.2024, it was clearly time-barred. The Court emphasized that per Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, the special limitation period of one year in the Code prevails over the general Limitation Act, and the time spent pursuing the appeal could not be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.