Dismissed

Miteshkumar Kishor Patel v. Paresh Savji Bhudia

Bombay HC19 Dec 2023CRA/102/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision application, the Bombay High Court held that a plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC solely for absence of cause of action where the deed of assignment names two persons as purchasers, as the trial court may mould relief later if exclusive ownership is not proved.

What did the court decide?

No costs. The civil revision application stands dismissed.

Miteshkumar Kishor Patel Vs Paresh Savji Bhudia — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

43-cra102-2023.doc

¶2

AGK

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.102 OF 2023

¶5

ATUL GANESH KULKARNI Digitally signed byATUL GANESH KULKARNI Date: 2023.12.19 18:17:30 +0530

¶6

Miteshkumar Kishor Patel … Applicant V/s. Paresh Savji Bhudia … Respondent

¶7

Mr. Abhishek Chitnis for the applicant.

¶8

Mr. Sohan Gunjal i/by Mr. Ojas Deolankar for the respondent.

¶9

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : DECEMBER 19, 2023

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

The defendant in a suit for declaration and injunction filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for dismissal of the suit which has been rejected by the impugned order.

¶12

The respondent/original plaintiff filed Special Civil Suit No.350 of 2021 seeking a declaration that the plaintiff be declared as absolute owner of the suit property and the defendant has no right, title and interest in the suit property. Further relief seeking direction against the defendant to execute correction deed by removing defendant’s name from the deed of assignment is also sought. The suit is based on deed of assignment dated 30 August 2017.

¶13

¶14

43-cra102-2023.doc

¶15

According to the plaintiff, he paid entire consideration and, therefore, he become absolute owner of the suit property. Therefore, the relief as prayed for deserves to be granted.

¶16

In such a suit, the defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 stating that the deed of assignment indicates name of two persons to be the purchasers. Therefore, both the persons are owners of the suit property. Hence, the claim of exclusive ownership is not sustainable.

¶17

On perusal of the plaint and the deed of assignment, it appears that the deed of assignment referred in the plaint indicates name of two persons, i.e. plaintiff and defendant. If ultimately during trial based on evidence adduced by the parties the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove exclusive ownership, it will always be open for the Trial Court to mould the relief for grant of lesser relief. However, at the stage of consideration of application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the plaint cannot be rejected on the ground of absence of cause of action. There is, therefore, no error of jurisdiction committed by the Trial Court.

¶18

The civil revision application stands dismissed. No costs.

¶19

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶20

Miteshkumar Kishor Patel v. Paresh Savji Bhudia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Miteshkumar Kishor Patel v. Paresh Savji Bhudia

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

Kamlakar Yashwantrao Bhopale Vs Sanjay Narayan Mane

Mohan Appaanna Chambhar (Chavan) Vs Amol Dilip Sawarde

Savita Changdeo Valhekar and Ors. Vs Jayant Maniklal Lunawat and Ors.

Dnyandeo Govind Shendge Vs Suresh Bhimrao Nimbalkar and Ors.

Dnyandeo Govind Shendge Vs Dhondiba Satoba Ahiwale

Kishor Jivraj Patel Vs Manisha Paresh Bhudia