Dismissed

M/S Rushi Dairy Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Vikas Sahebrao Pagore and Others

Bombay HC22 Apr 2013CRA/114/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the civil revision application. The Court held that the Trial Court's order refusing premature rejection of the plaint was not perverse. A thorough trial was necessary to examine cause of action and validity of transactions under the Bombay Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act and other laws.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision application was rejected. The stay application was also disposed of.

M/S Rushi Dairy Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs Vikas Sahebrao… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

CRA No. 114/13

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 114 OF 2013 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4468 OF 2013

¶5

M/s. Rushi Dairy Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

¶6

....Applicants.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Vikas s/o. Sahebrao Pagore and Ors.

¶9

....Respondents.

¶10

Mr. S.S. Gangakhedkar, Advocate for applicants.

¶11

CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATED : 22nd April, 2013.

¶12

ORAL ORDER :

¶13

Heard the counsel appearing for the revision applicants/original defendant Nos. 9 and 10. He submits that infact the permission of the competent authority under the Bombay Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1958 was not necessary. He submits that if such permission was not necessary, in that case, relief of declaration cannot be granted to the original plaintiff. It is submitted that the father of the plaintiff was consenting party to the said transaction. The said transaction was entered between the revision applicants and the father of the plaintiff. Therefore, he submits that the application filed by the revision applicant herein for rejection of the plaint should have

CRA No. 114/13

been allowed.

I have carefully gone through the submissions of the counsel appearing for the applicant, perused the reasons recorded by the Trial Court. The Trial Court in its impugned order in paragraph Nos. 9 and 10 has discussed the status of the plaintiff and when he attended the majority. Taking into consideration the various provisions of law including section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, the provisions of Civil Procedure Code and also the provisions of the Bombay Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, the Trial Court held that unless the suit is tried, it is not possible to hold that, there is no cause of action and the sale transactions are not hit for not seeking the permission of the competent authority. In paragraph No. 15, the Court has referred to the Circular dated 9th of July 2002 and also the provisions of Consolidation Act and the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. It appears that the provisions of more than one Act are involved and suit is required to be tried. Therefore, in my opinion, the order of the Trial Court cannot be said to be unreasonable or perverse. Ultimately the revision applicants will get an opportunity to contest the suit on merits. It will be open for the revision applicants to raise all the contentions available to them. No case is made out. The revision application is devoid of any merits. Same stands rejected.

¶18

CRA No. 114/13

¶19

¶20

In view of rejection of the Civil Revision Application, Civil Application for stay does not survive and disposed of accordingly.

¶21

[ S.S. SHINDE, J. ]

¶22

ssc/

M/S Rushi Dairy Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Vikas Sahebrao Pagore and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Rushi Dairy Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Vikas Sahebrao Pagore and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Sub Divisional Forest Officer and Anr. Vs Raghunath Haribhau Nairale and Ors.

Bajirao Laximan Pawar and Anr. Vs Dhananjay Rameshwar Gudve

Hausabai Fakira Kapkar Vs Babubai Nivrutti Ranmale and Ors.

Jyoti Amol Shinde Vs Amol Arjun Shinde

Smt Bharati@Hira Rajendra Zhade and Anr. Vs Smt Sonabai Janardhan Zhade

Tejasing Kakasing Tumke, Died Thr. L.Rs. Amarkaur and Anr. Vs Kantaben Keshavaji Rathod, Died Thr. L.Rs. Gopal and Ors.