Disposed

Kasturi Foundry Pvt. Ltd. Co. Thru Managing Director, Nitin Premraj Zavar v. Maharashtra State Electrical Board Co. Ltd. Thru Superintendent , Sangli

Bombay HC13 Apr 2023WP/11515/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Bench rejected this Writ Petition filed by Kasturi Foundry challenging the rejection of its Review Application by the Civil Judge. The Bench held that the remedy of Appeal against the order rejecting the plaint remains available and no fault is found in the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition rejected. Remedy of Appeal against the order rejecting the plaint kept open.

Kasturi Foundry Pvt. Ltd. Co. Thru Managing… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

5-wp-11515-2019.doc

¶2

varsha

¶3

Digitally signed by VARSHA VARSHA VIJAY VIJAY RAJGURU RAJGURU Date:2023.04.20 17:26:02 +0530

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 11515 OF 2019

¶6

Kasturi Foundry Pvt. Ltd. Co. Thru Managing Director, Nitin Premraj Zavar

¶7

… Petitioner

¶8

vs.

¶9

Maharashtra State Electrical Board Co. Ltd thru Superintendent, Sangli … Respondents

¶10

Mr. S.S. Redekar, for the Petitioner.

¶11

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 13^th APRIL, 2023

¶12

P.C. :-

¶13

This Petition is filed to challenge the Order dated 31^st March 2018 passed by Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Islampur, in Review Application No.01 of 2017. The Review Application was filed by the Petitioner to challenge the Order allowing the Application under Order VII, Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. In view of the said Order, the Plaint of the Petitioner is rejected. The said Order passed under Order 7 Rule 11, rejecting the Plaint, is an appealable order.

¶14

The said Order has been sought to be reviewed by the Petitioner by filing Review Application. By the impugned order, the Application for Review has been rejected by observing that no ground for review has been made out.

¶15

1/1

¶16

5-wp-11515-2019.doc

¶17

I do not find any fault in the order, thereby rejecting the Review Application. So far as the Order rejecting the Plaint is concerned, it is open for the Petitioner to challenge the same by filing an Appeal.

¶18

The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner states that the Appeal against the Order dated 27^th February 2017, thereby rejecting the Plaint, is not yet filed. He, therefore, submits that the remedy of filing an Appeal be kept open, in the event order rejecting the Review Petition is to be confirmed. In my view, rejection of the Review Application is not an impediment to the Petitioner to filing an appropriate Appeal against the rejection of the plaint. That remedy is always available to the Petitioner.

¶19

I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned Order. Writ Petition is therefore rejected.

¶20

(GAURI GODSE, J.)

¶21

2/2

Kasturi Foundry Pvt. Ltd. Co. Thru Managing Director, Nitin Premraj Zavar v. Maharashtra State Electrical Board Co. Ltd. Thru Superintendent , Sangli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kasturi Foundry Pvt. Ltd. Co. Thru Managing Director, Nitin Premraj Zavar v. Maharashtra State Electrical Board Co. Ltd. Thru Superintendent , Sangli

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

Subhashchandra Shankarlal Agrawal Vs Baban Keruji Avhad

Akhileshwardas Guru Raghunathdasji Alias Janakidas Vaishnav Vs Mohan Shaligram Sonawane

Kalpana Vishwanath Khandare and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bonny @ Bonniface L Viegas Lhr of Thema Viegas (Decd) Vs Mrs. Betty C D'Souza and Ors.

Mr. Bharat Mulji Khona Vs M/S. Fiza Construction Co. through Prop. Shri. G. R. Mujawar Thru Poa Julfikar Mohd. Shaikh and Ors.

Sheikh Sahabuddin Abdul Hamid Sheikh Vs Ali Jarrar Siddiqui and Anr.