Petitioners challenged the rejection of their application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC in a dispute over a sale deed claimed to be illegal. The High Court found no error in the impugned order and dismissed the civil revision application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
GAG
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
Civil Revision Application No.278 Of 2012.
Sushila Shrikant Savare & Ors. :: Petitioners.
Versus
Dhakalu Bhau Gajarkar :: Respondents.
Mr. S.D. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. Anjali Helekar, Advocate for the Respondents.
| CORAM | :: | RANJIT MORE, J. |
|---|---|---|
| DATED | :: | 12thDecember, 2012. |
P.C. :-
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
2. By the impugned order, the petitioners' (Ori. Defendants') application filed under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(d) of “The Code of Civil Procedure,1908” came to be rejected.
3. The respondents (Ori.Plffs.) filed Spl.Civil Suit No.24 Of 2011 in the court of the Civil Judge,(Sr.Divn.), Gadhinglaj for declaration that the sale deed executed by the petitioner No.1 (Ori.Deft.1) in favour of petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 (Ori.Defts.2 to 6) dated 24th January, 2011 is illegal and void ab initio and liable to be set aside. The respondents also claimed right of pre emption and directions to the petitioner No.1 to execute the sale deed in their favour. Consequential injunction is also prayed for. In this suit, as stated above, the
1
petitioners challenged the maintainability of the suit on the ground that same is not filed within limitation and no cause of action accrued to file the suit.
4. So far as objection regarding the limitation is concerned, the trial court found that the sale deed between petitioner No.1 and petitioner Nos. 2 & is executed on 24th January, 2011 and thereafter, the suit is filed within a period of one year, therefore, same is within limitation. As far as cause of action is concern, I have gone through the pleadings of the respondents. In paragraph Nos. 5 and 7 the respondents have specifically pleaded that their agricultural lands are adjacent to the suit land and on that basis, they are claiming right of pre emption. The respondents also pleads oral agreement between themselves and petitioner No.1.
5. In the above circumstances, I do not find any error in the impugned order which would enable me to interfere with the same in writ jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of “The Code of Civil Procedure,1908”. Civil Revision Application stands dismissed.
6. Mr.Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner states that respondents application for grant of temporary injunction is pending before the court. If that be so, same and original suit shall be disposed of independently and on its own merit without influence by the observations made herein.
(RANJIT MORE, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the rejection of application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC was erroneous warranting interference under Section 115 CPC.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Sushila Shrikant Savare & Ors.
Dhakalu Bhau Gajarkar
RANJIT MORE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
