Dismissed

Shri. Ismail Babalal Shaikh and Ors. v. Shri. Dinkar Chandar Kamble

Bombay HC28 Aug 2023CRA/308/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application sought to challenge an order rejecting a plea that the trial court lacked jurisdiction due to a statutory bar under the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act. The bench held that the order did not suffer from jurisdictional error and was properly dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Rejected the civil revision application; order stands rejected.

Shri. Ismail Babalal Shaikh and Ors. Vs Shri. Dinkar Chandar… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

6-cra-308-2023.doc

¶2

Nikita

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.308 OF 2023

¶5

Ismail Babalal Shaikh and Ors.… Applicants

¶6

NIKITA KAILAS DARADE Digitally signed byNIKITA KAILASDARADE Date: 2023.08.2917:47:33 +0530

¶7

V/s.

¶8

Dinkar Chandar Kamble and Ors.… Respondents

¶9

Mr. Aditya S. Raktade for the Applicants.

¶10

CORAM :AMIT BORKAR, J.

¶11

DATED:AUGUST 28, 2023

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

1.By the impugned order, Trial Court had rejected the
application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 by Special Civil Suit No.15 of 2020. It appears
that the suit is filed for seeking relief of declaration that the
plaintiffs be declared as owners of the suit properties.

¶14

2.Consequential injunction against the defendants, not to
disturb their possession over the suit property is also sought.

¶15

3.The defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11
(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, alleging barred created
under Section 36 (A) of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation
and Consolidation of holdings, Act 1947.

¶16

4.On perusal of the Section 36(a) of the said Act, it appears
that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred from entertaining

¶17

¶18

6-cra-308-2023.doc

¶19

the question adjudicated by the authorities under the Act. Such
question cannot be in the facts of the case, decided based on
averments in the plaint.

¶20

5.Jurisdiction of the Court is different concept than the plaint
barred by the provisions of the statute. It is open for the applicants
to raise issue of jurisdiction at appropriate stage of the suit,
however, the impugned order dos not suffer from either perversity
of error of jurisdiction calling interference under Section 115 of
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

¶21

6. The civil revision application stands rejected. No costs.

¶22

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶23

Shri. Ismail Babalal Shaikh and Ors. v. Shri. Dinkar Chandar Kamble

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Ismail Babalal Shaikh and Ors. v. Shri. Dinkar Chandar Kamble

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

Manu Janardhanan Vs Sanghamitra Mukherjee

Shahu Corner Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit and Anr. Vs Shri. Ashwin Annaso Jadhav and Anr.

Sanghamitra Mukherjee Vs Manu Janardhanan

Naiknavare Developers Private Limited and Ors. Vs Shantilal Ruchand Oswal and Ors.

Shantaram Gangaram Patil Vs Sou. Alka Makrand Aswale and Ors.

Diana Tyagi Vs Raj Tyagi