High Court
Legal Reasoning
(1) cra-28-2023.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADCIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.28 OF 2023WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO.2430 OF 2024Ravi Bhaskar Wattamwar,Age: 52 years, Occu: Business,R/o. Mid and Hote, Gokul Nagar,Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded...ApplicantVersus1.BabanraoNarbaji More @ Baba s/o Naru More,Age 62 years, Occu: Retired, R/o Vasarni, At Present Ramrao Pawar Marg, Shrinagar, Nanded. Tq. & District Nanded. (Original Plaintiffs) 2.Sushant s/o Tuljaram RathorR/o Irwara Bazar, Nanded. Tq. & District Nanded. 3.Sunil s/o Tuljaram Rathor Deceased, through LRS-3/1.Sandhya w/o Sunil Rathor, Age 45 years, Occu: Household. 3/2.Medha d/o Sunil Rathor, Age 24 years, Occu: Household. 3/3.Swastik s/o Sunil Rathor, Age 22 years, Occ: Business, 3/3.Suraj s/o Sunil Rathor, Age 20 years, Occu: Busness, All R/o Near Shrishitala (Pochhama) Mata Mandir, Itwara, Nanded. 4.Hirasinha s/o Anantramsinha ChavanDeceased, Through: LRs-4/1.Dilipsinha s/o HirasinhaChavan, Age 46 years, Occu: Business. R/o CIDCO, Nanded. (2) cra-28-2023.odt4/2.Shilabai w/ RanjitsinhaChavan, Age 43 years, Occu: Household, R/o Chouphala, Nanded. 4/3.Gurusinha s/o Hirasinha Chavan, Age 42 years, Occu: Business. R/o Vazirabad, Nanded. 4/4.Bhagwansinha s/o Hirasinha Chavan, Age 40 years, Occu: Business, R/o Kautha, Tq. & Dist. Nanded. 5.Purbhaji Baba More, Deceased, Through LRS-5/1.Gangadhar s/o Purbhaji More, Age 70 years, Occu: Agri. R/o Vasarni, Tq. &Dist.Nanded. 6.Ganesh s/o Purbhaji More, Deceased, Through LRS-6/1.Shalanba Ganesh More, Age 55 years, Occu: Household. 6/2Gajanan S/o Ganesh More,Age 40 years Occu: Agri. 6/3.Rama s/o Ganesh More, Age 35 years, Occu: Agri. All R/o Vasarni, Tq. & Dist. Nanded. 7.Balaji s/o Padurang More, Deceased, Through LRs-7/1.Muktabai Balaji More, Age 60 years, Occu: Household. 7/2.Dinesh s/o Balaji More, Age 35 years Occu: Driver, Both R/o Gokulnagar, Laxmi Niwas, Bhokar, Tq. Bhokar, District Nanded. 8.Govid Pandurang More, Deceased, Through: LRS-8/1.Rekhabai w/o Govind More, Age 50 years, Occu: Household. (3) cra-28-2023.odt8/2.Dipak s/o Govind More, Age 35 years, Occu: Mistari R/o Vasarni. Dist. Nanded. 9.Suresh s/o Pandurang More, Deceased, Through LRS-9/1.Mangalbai Suresh More, Age 45 years, Occu: Household. 9/2.Vikas s/o Suresh More, Age 25 years, Occu: Labour. 9/3.Akash s/o Suresh More, Age 22 years, Occu: Labour, R/o Vasarni, Dist.Nanded. 10.Shankar s/o Naru More (Deceased, LRs-10/1.Lilavati w/o Shankar More, Age 40 years, Occu: Labour. 10/2.Raju s/o Shankar More, Age 40 years Occu: Labour. 10/3.Balu s/o Shankar More, Age 36 years, Occu: Labour. 10/4.Ravi s/o Shankar More, Age 34 years, Occu: Service, All r/o Vasarni, Tq. & Dist. Nanded. 10/5/Anusaya Sanjay Dashrathe, Age 38 years Occu: Household, R/o Vadsad, Tq.Pusad, Dist. Yeotmal. 11.Bhaskar s/o Maroti Wattamwar,Deceased, Through: LRS-11/1.Rupesh S/o Bhaskar Wattamwar, Age Major, Occu: Business. 11/1.Rajesh s/o Bhaskar Wattamwar, Age Major, Occu: Business, All R/o Mid & Hotel, Gokulnagar, Nanded.Dsit.Nanded. (4) cra-28-2023.odt12.Vithal s/o Mlappa Shetty,Age 45 years, Occu: Hotel, R/o Sangavi, Tq. &Dist. Nanded...Respondents(Orig. Respondent Nos.1 to 11)ANDCIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.29 OF 2023WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO.2429 OF 20241.Rupesh s/o Bhaskar WattamwarAge: 55 yrs., Occu: Business,R/o. Mid & Hote, Gokul Nagar,Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded.2.Rajesh s/o Bhaskar WattamwarAge: 54 yrs., Occu: Business,R/o. Mid & Hote, Gokul Nagar,Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded...Applicants (Ori. Respondent Nos.10/2 and 10/3)Versus1.BabanraoNarbaji More @ Baba s/o Naru More,Age 62 years, Occu: Retired, R/o Vasarni, At Present Ramrao Pawar Marg, Shrinagar, Nanded. Tq. & District Nanded. (Original Plaintiffs) 2.Sushant s/o Tuljaram RathorR/o Irwara Bazar, Nanded. Tq. & District Nanded. 3.Sunil s/o Tuljaram Rathor Deceased, through LRS-3/1.Sandhya w/o Sunil Rathor, Age 45 years, Occu: Household. 3/2.Medha d/o Sunil Rathor, Age 24 years, Occu: Household. 3/3.Swastik s/o Sunil Rathor, Age 22 years, Occ: Business, 3/3.Suraj s/o Sunil Rathor, Age 20 years, Occu: Busness,
Legal Reasoning
(5) cra-28-2023.odtAll R/o Near Shrishitala (Pochhama) Mata Mandir, Itwara, Nanded. 4.Hirasinha s/o Anantramsinha ChavanDeceased, Through: LRs-4/1.Dilipsinha s/o HirasinhaChavan, Age 46 years, Occu: Business. R/o CIDCO, Nanded. 4/2.Shilabai w/ RanjitsinhaChavan, Age 43 years, Occu: Household, R/o Chouphala, Nanded. 4/3.Gurusinha s/o Hirasinha Chavan, Age 42 years, Occu: Business. R/o Vazirabad, Nanded. 4/4.Bhagwansinha s/o Hirasinha Chavan, Age 40 years, Occu: Business, R/o Kautha, Tq. & Dist. Nanded. 5.Purbhaji Baba More, Deceased, Through LRS-5/1.Gangadhar s/o Purbhaji More, Age 70 years, Occu: Agri. R/o Vasarni, Tq. &Dist.Nanded. 6.Ganesh s/o Purbhaji More, Deceased, Through LRS-6/1.Shalanba Ganesh More, Age 55 years, Occu: Household. 6/2Gajanan S/o Ganesh More,Age 40 years Occu: Agri. 6/3.Rama s/o Ganesh More, Age 35 years, Occu: Agri. All R/o Vasarni, Tq. & Dist. Nanded. 7.Balaji s/o Padurang More, Deceased, Through LRs-7/1.Muktabai Balaji More, Age 60 years, Occu: Household. (6) cra-28-2023.odt7/2.Dinesh s/o Balaji More, Age 35 years Occu: Driver, Both R/o Gokulnagar, Laxmi Niwas, Bhokar, Tq. Bhokar, District Nanded. 8.Govid Pandurang More, Deceased, Through: LRS-8/1.Rekhabai w/o Govind More, Age 50 years, Occu: Household. 8/2.Dipak s/o Govind More, Age 35 years, Occu: Mistari R/o Vasarni. Dist. Nanded. 9.Suresh s/o Pandurang More, Deceased, Through LRS-9/1.Mangalbai Suresh More, Age 45 years, Occu: Household. 9/2.Vikas s/o Suresh More, Age 25 years, Occu: Labour. 9/3.Akash s/o Suresh More, Age 22 years, Occu: Labour, R/o Vasarni, Dist.Nanded. 10.Shankar s/o Naru More (Deceased, LRs-10/1.Lilavati w/o Shankar More, Age 40 years, Occu: Labour. 10/2.Raju s/o Shankar More, Age 40 years Occu: Labour. 10/3.Balu s/o Shankar More, Age 36 years, Occu: Labour. 10/4.Ravi s/o Shankar More, Age 34 years, Occu: Service, All r/o Vasarni, Tq. & Dist. Nanded. 10/5/Anusaya Sanjay Dashrathe, Age 38 years Occu: Household, R/o Vadsad, Tq.Pusad, Dist. Yeotmal. 11.Bhaskar s/o Maroti Wattamwar, (7) cra-28-2023.odtDeceased, Through: LRS-11/1.Rupesh S/o Bhaskar Wattamwar, Age Major, Occu: Business. 11/1.Rajesh s/o Bhaskar Wattamwar, Age Major, Occu: Business, All R/o Mid & Hotel, Gokulnagar, Nanded.Dsit.Nanded. 12.Vithal s/o Mlappa Shetty,Age 45 years, Occu: Hotel, R/o Sangavi, Tq. &Dist. Nanded...Respondents(Orig. Respondent Nos.1 to 11) …Mr. A. S. Bajaj, Advocate for Applicants.Mr. P. R. Katneshwarkar, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. G. G.Suryawanshi, Advocate for Respondent No.1.… CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATED : 09th MAY, 2025.JUDGMENT :- 1.The applicants / original defendants impugns order dated19.12.2022 passed on their Applications filed below Exhibits 68 and55 respectively, seeking rejection of plaint in Regular Civil SuitNo.106 / 2022 pending before Civil Judge Junior Division atNanded. (Hereinafter, parties are referred to by their originalstatus for the sake of convenience and brevity).2.The respondent / plaintiff instituted Regular Civil SuitNo.106/2022 before Civil Judge Junior Division, Nanded, seekingrelief of declaration of ownership to the extent of 1/3rd share in landSurvey No.3 (Gut No.28), situated at village Rahimpur, Tq. andDist. Nanded. The plaintiff further seeks declaration that sale (8) cra-28-2023.odtdeeds dated 09.06.1972 and 04.07.1975 are not binding on hisshare and claims for decree of possession so also perpetualinjunction against defendant nos.10/1 to 10/3 and 11 fromalienating and creating third party interest in the suit property.3.The plaintiff contends that Survey No.3 admeasuring 33acres was owned by Gopalsinh Ramsinh Sayal to the extent of 16acres 20 gunthas. The plaintiff’s father Naroba, uncles Purbha andPandurang were owners of remaining 16 acres 20 gunthas to theextent of 5 acres 20 gunthas each. Gopalsinh had leased out hisland to plaintiff’s father i.e. Naroba. As such, Naroba was holding22 acres area from Survey No.3. On 06.09.1967, Naroba expired.However, on 14.06.1968, his brothers Pandurang and Purbhajoining hands with Revenue Officers, shown partition of suit landamongst brothers and got mutated their names along with name ofplaintiff’s brother Sambha in the revenue record. Later on, theyexecuted sale deed dated 09.06.1972 of 4 acres land in favour of T.Rajendra and sale deed dated 04.07.1975 of 12 acres 20 R land inname of Bhaskar Wattamwar.4.According to plaintiff, aforesaid transactions took placeduring pendency of Special Civil Suit No.63/1971 (renumbered asRegular Civil Suit No.988/2000) instituted by Tuljaram Rathor andHirasing Anantramsing, claiming ownership and possession oversuit property against present plaintiff, his brother Sambha and (9) cra-28-2023.odtuncles Purbha and Pandurang in respect of suit property. Sinceplaintiff was minor at the time of institution of suit of the year1971, he was shown as defendant no.5 under guardianship of hisstepmother namely Tanyabai. Ultimately, aforesaid suit wascompromised by Bhaskar Wattamwar (purchaser under sale deeddated 04.07.1975) with Tuljaram and another. Eventually, saidsuit came to be dismissed for want of prosecution. According toplaintiff, after dismissal of aforesaid suit, he got cause of action tofile present suit seeking relief as claimed.5.The defendant nos.10/1 to 10/3 caused appearances in suitand filed respective applications seeking rejection of plaint underOrder VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, contending that suitdoes not disclose cause of action. The reliefs claimed in suit arehopelessly barred by law of limitation. The suit is inadequatelyvalued. The plaintiff has no right in suit property. The cause ofaction as pleaded in suit is illusory and camouflage.6.The Trial Court after considering rival contentions, rejectedapplications observing that point of limitation is mixed question offacts and law, plaintiff has appropriately pleaded cause of actiondated 13.12.2021 as dismissal of Regular Civil Suit No.988/2000involving suit property. Similarly, valuation as made in suit iscorrect. (10) cra-28-2023.odt7.Aggrieved defendants filed present Civil RevisionApplications assailing order of Trial Court.8.Mr. Bajaj, learned Advocate appearing for applicants wouldurge that Trial Court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested with himunder Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure in accordancewith law. Mr. Bajaj would submit that plaintiff has instituted suitassailing alienation of suit land made in the year 1972 and 1795under registered sale deeds. The plaintiff had every knowledge ofsale deeds or transfer of lands hence suit instituted after 46 yearsis hopelessly barred by limitation. Mr. Bajaj would submit thatcause of action for filing suit is fictitious, imaginary andunconcerned with main relief claimed in suit. According to him,pendency of Regular Civil Suit No.988/2000 or its dismissal in theyear 2021 is absolutely irrelevant and cannot constitute cause ofaction to file present suit for reliefs claimed. According to Mr.Bajaj, Trial Court has erroneously observed that question oflimitation is mixed question of law and facts, when careful readingof plaint depicts that suit is manifestly barred by limitation. Insupport of his contentions he relies upon series of supreme courtjudgments right from T. Arivandandam delivered in 1977 tillRamisetty Venkatanna delivered in the year 2022, wherein law onthe point of jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of CivilProcedure has been elaborated and explained. (11) cra-28-2023.odt9.Per contra, Mr. Katneshwarkar, learned Senior Advocateappearing for respondent/plaintiff supports impugned order. Hewould urge minor plaintiff was added as defendant no.5 in RegularCivil Suit No.988/2000 under guardianship of his step mother. Theissue as to the ownership and possession of self same suit propertywas subject matter of that suit. The plaintiff could not haveinstituted independent suit raising his claim as to the title in wakeof pending litigation in respect of self-same properties. He would,therefore, urge that dismissal of Regular Civil Suit No.988/2000has been rightly pleaded as cause of action. According to Mr.Katneshwarkar, Trial Court has rightly considered aforesaidaspects and held that issue of limitation is mixed question of lawand facts in present case and can be decided only at the conclusionof trial.10.Having considered submissions advanced, two aspects areposed for consideration before this Court. Firstly, whether oncareful reading of plaint, plaintiff has made out case depictingright over suit property and has genuine cause of action forinstitution of present suit. Secondly, whether suit seekingdeclaration in respect of sale deeds executed in the years 1972 and1975 is within limitation on the basis of averments made in plaintin conjunction with documents relied upon. (12) cra-28-2023.odt11.Careful analysis of averments in plaint depicts that plaintiffis claiming his title over suit property through his father Naroba.Admitedly, Naroba expired on 06.09.1967. Thereafter, names ofplaintiff’s uncles namely Pandurang and Purbha and his brotherSambha were mutated in Record of Rights vide Mutation EntryNo.48 dated 16.06.1968. In the year 1971 Tuljaram Rathor andanother instituted suit for recovery of possession of land SurveyNo.3 to the extent of half portion i.e. 16 acres 20 gunthas known asPandikadcha-hissa against Pandurang, Purbha, Sambha,Shankar (plaintiff himself) and his stepmother Tanyabai.However, during pendency of that suit plaintiff’s uncles and hisbrother Sambha executed sale deeds dated 09.06.1972 and04.07.1975 in favour of T. Rajendra and Bhaskar Wattamwarrespectively and alienated 16 acres 20 gunthas land to thosepurchasers.12.In Special Civil Suit No.63/1971 (new Regular Civil SuitNo.988/2000) instituted by Tuljaram Rathor and another, minorplaintiff was shown aged about 10 years under guardianship of hisstepmother Tanyabai. In present suit plaintiff shown his age as 62years. Therefore, it can be safely gathered that plaintiff attainedmajority in year 1978. If plaintiff was aggrieved by sale deeds of1972 and 1975, it was open for him to set out his claim and seek (13) cra-28-2023.odtdeclaration that those sale deeds were not binding on his rights orthose are invalid.13.Looking to the age of plaintiff, right to assail sale deeds onthe ground of infringement or exclusion of his right occurred to himon attaining majority. Article Article 58 of the Limitation Actprescribes period of three years seeking declaration from datewhen right to sue accrues. Therefore, assuming that plaintiffattained majority in the year 1978, suit could have been institutedbefore 1981. Even assuming that Article 110 of Limitation Actapplies in present case as plaintiff was excluded from suit propertyon the date of execution of sale deeds, limitation of 12 years isprovided to seek relief of partition. Therefore assuming period of 12years from the date when plaintiff attained majority, suit ought tohave instituted before 1990. At this stage it is appropriate to refercertain observations of this Court in case of ChhabubhaiBalkrishna Sutar and another Vs. Panchan Ladha Savalaand others1, which reads are as under:“Thus, it is evident that the Suit has been filed forcancellation of the Sale Deeds of 1947. This wouldobviously mean that the Suit is barred by limitation. Boththe trial Court and the Appellate Court have correctly heldthat the plaintiffs were not entitled for a declarationcancelling the Sale Deeds of 1947. Faced with thisdifficulty, the learned Advocate for the plaintiffs hassubmitted, on instructions, that the plaintiffs do not desireto press prayers (b), (b-1) and (d) at this stage and areconfining the reliefs claimed in the Suit only to prayers (a)and (c). This means that the plaintiffs are today12010 (5) Mh.L.J. 885. (14) cra-28-2023.odtseeking a declaration that they have a 1/3rdundivided share in the suit property and that theyare entitled to partition and separate possession ofthis 1/3rd undivided share.17.Even assuming the Suit is confined only to theaforesaid prayers, it would still be hit by limitation. UnderArticle 110 of the Limitation Act, a person who is excludedfrom a share in a joint family property must file a Suitwithin 12 years from the exclusion. The witness for theplaintiffs has deposed that the plaintiffs were ousted fromthe suit property in 1954. Therefore, it was necessary for theplaintiffs to file the Suit within 12 years from their ousterfrom the suit property. Admittedly, this has not been done. 14.In present case plaintiff was well aware about alienation ofsuit property by his brother Sambha, uncles Purba and Panduunder registered sale deeds executed in year 1972-75 excluding hisright. Hence plaintiff could have filed suit for partition of jointfamily property within period of 12 years prescribed under Art 110of limitation Act. Plaintiff attained majority in year 1978 henceassuming extension till extinguishing of disability, limitation toraise challenge expired in year 1990. Present suit is filed in year2022 would be barred by limitation. 15.The plaintiff contends that Regular Civil Suit No.988/2000(old Special Civil Suit No.63/1971) pertaining to suit property waspending, hence, he got cause of action to file present suit on itsdismissal vide order dated 13.12.2021. Apparently, as peraverments in plaint it is contention of plaintiff that TuljaramRathor and another instituted suit for recovery of possession. They (15) cra-28-2023.odtwere trying to set up their independent title over suit property.However, during pendency of that suit, when suit property wasalienated by plaintiff’s uncles and brother under registered saledeeds of 1972 and 1975 executed in favour of T. Rajendra andBhaskar Wattamwar respectively there was no impediment toplaintiff to assert his own right claiming that those sale deeds areinvalid or not binding on his right. It is difficult to hold thatpendency of Tuljaram’s suit precluded plaintiff from asserting hisown right and infringement thereof and seek declaration to thateffect. The dismissal of suit instituted by Tuljaram in the year2021 is absolutely irrelevant to constitute cause of action in favourof plaintiff to seek declaration against infringement of his right onaccount of execution of sale deeds of the years 1972 and 1975. It isnot case of plaintiff that he was not aware about sale deeds andconsequential transfer of rights in favour of T. Rajendra andBhaskar Wattamwar. Therefore, this court holds that cause ofaction pleaded by plaintiff is illusory and product of clever drafting.16.In case of T. Arivandandam Vs. T. V. Satyapal andAnother2, particularly in paragraph no.5, Supreme Court observedas under:“The learned Munsif must remember that if on ameaningful-not formal-reading of the plaint it ismanifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of notdisclosing a clear right to sue, be should exercise his powerunder Or. VII r. 1 1 C.P.C. taking care to see that the2(1977) 4 SCC 467. (16) cra-28-2023.odtground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clever,drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip itin the bud at the first hearing by examining the partysearchingly under Order X C.P.C. An activist Judge is theanswer to irresponsible law suits.”17.The aforesaid exposition of law clearly puts obligation onTrial Court to record satisfaction as to right of plaintiff to sue andalso keep in mind that clever drafting may create illusory cause ofaction which shall be searchingly examined and in appropriatecases powers under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedureshall be exercised. In present case, impugned order suggests thatTrial Court failed to cautiously apply his mind to averments inplaint to search genuineness of cause of action or its relevancy forclaim in suit and got trapped in camouflage.18.So far as aspect of limitation is concerned, Trial Courtobserved that this would be mixed question of law and facts andcannot be considered at this stage. It is well settled that whileconsidering application under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of CivilProcedure, contents of plaint and documents appended thereto arerelevant and it is duty of the Court to find out clear right to sueand limitation. If, on the basis of averments in plaint, it ismanifest that suit is barred by limitation, Court need not protractdecision on issue of limitation for trial. In present case, plaintiff isclaiming his right in the suit properties, which are alienated inyears 1972 and 1975. The plaintiff attained majority in the year (17) cra-28-2023.odt1978 and was aware about aforesaid transactions in exclusion ofhis alleged right. In this background, plaintiff has no explanationfor 43 years delay to assail infringement of his right. In this casenone of the provision extending period of limitation can be resortedby plaintiff. It is trite that, even in case of disability, extension ofthree years from date of extinguishing disability is provided tochallenge action of infringement of right. However, such extensionof limitation of three years was also expired in present case longback in the year 1981 and even for relief of partition 12 yearsperiod of limitation expired in the year 1990.19. In case of Raghwendra Sharan Singh Vs. RamPrasanna Singh and Others3, Supreme Court observed inparagraph no.9 as under:“Now, so far as the application on behalf of the originalplaintiff and even the observations made by the learned trialCourt as well as the High Court that the question withrespect to the limitation is a mixed question of law andfacts, which can be decided only after the parties lead theevidence is concerned, as observed and held by this Court inthe cases of Sham Lal alias Kuldip (supra); N.V. SrinivasMurthy (supra) as well as in the case of Ram PrakashGupta (supra), considering the averments in the plaint if itis found that the suit is clearly barred by law of limitation,the same can be rejected in exercise of powers under Order 7Rule 11(d) of the CPC.”20.Similarly, in case of Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai KalyaniBhanusali (Gajra) and Others4, in paragraph no.23.3, SupremeCourt observed as under:3(2020) 16 SCC 601.4(2020) 7 SCC 366. (18) cra-28-2023.odt“The underlying object of Order VII Rule 11 (a) is that if ina suit, no cause of action is disclosed, or the suit is barredby limitation under Rule 11 (d), the Court would notpermit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract theproceedings in the suit. In such a case, it would benecessary to put an end to the sham litigation, so thatfurther judicial time is not wasted.”21.The Supreme Court in case of Azhar Hussain V. RajivGhandhi5 observed in paragraph no.12 as under:“12. …The whole purpose of conferment of such power is toensure that a litigation which is meaningless, and bound toprove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time ofthe Court, and exercise the mind of the respondent. Thesword of Damocles need not be kept hanging over his headunnecessarily without point or purpose. Even if anordinary civil litigation, the Court readily exercises thepower to reject a plaint, if it does not disclose any cause ofaction.” 12.2 The power conferred on the court to terminatea civil action is, however, a drastic one, and the conditionsenumerated in Order VII Rule 11 are required to be strictlyadhered to. ”22.In light of aforesaid exposition of law, observations of TrialCourt that issue of limitation cannot be decided at preliminarystage in application under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of CivilProcedure cannot be countenanced. In view of aforesaid facts andcircumstances, this Court holds that plaint is liable to be rejectedsince it sans cause of action and barred by limitation. Hence,following order:ORDERa.Civil Revision Applications are allowed.5AIR 1986 SC 1253.
Decision
(19) cra-28-2023.odtb.The impugned order dated 19.12.2022 passed below Exhibits68 and 55 respectively in Regular Civil Suit No.106/2022 pendingbefore Civil Judge Junior Division at Nanded is quashed and setaside.c.The applications under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of CivilProcedure filed below Exhibits 68 and 55 are allowed.d.The plaint in Regular Civil Suit No.106/2022 stands rejected.e.In view of disposal of Civil Revision Applications, pendingCivil Applications stand disposed of.(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)JUDGEDevendra/May-2025