Bharti Bhimrao Havaldar and Ors. vs Gajanan Ramu @… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2025)

Bharti Bhimrao Havaldar and Ors. vs Gajanan Ramu @… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal admitted after framing substantial questions of law (merits not decided); in Interim Application No. 75 of 2025, ad-interim stay granted till next date in terms of prayer clause (b) and rule on interim relief in terms of prayer clause (a) made returnable on 12th March 2025; rule in Interim Application No. 76 of 2025 likewise made returnable on 12th March 2025; respondents' notice waived.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appeal from order is maintainable, notwithstanding the respondents' preliminary objection that the impugned order is revisable. +2 more

Court's answer

The preliminary objection that the appeal from order is not maintainable (the impugned order being revisable) has no substance: since rejection of the plaint is a decree, the first appellate court's order allowing the appeal, setting aside the rejection of the plaint and remanding falls under clause (u) of Rule (1) of Order XLIII of CPC and is appealable; hence the present appeal from order is maintainable.

Ratio / Principle

The appeal raises substantial questions of law and is admitted; the merits of the framed questions were left open for subsequent hearing.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction (GAURI GODSE, J.), Appeal From Order No. 662 of 2024 with Interim Application Nos. 75 and 76 of 2025, order dated 15th January 2025. Maintainability: on the respondents' preliminary objection that the appeal from order was not maintainable as the impugned order was revisable, the Court held otherwise - the impugned order was passed in a first appeal filed by defendant nos. 4 to 6 against the trial court's rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908; since rejection of a plaint is a decree, and the first appellate court allowed the appeal, set aside the rejection and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh hearing, the impugned order is appealable under clause (u) of Rule (1) of Order XLIII of CPC and the appeal from order is maintainable. Admission: the appeal was admitted on two substantial questions of law - (I) whether, in view of Section 63 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ('said Act of 2013'), the suit would be barred to be tried by the Civil Court; and (II) whether, in view of the plaintiff's pleadings regarding acquisition initiated under the said Act of 2013, the trial court's order rejecting the plaint would be sustainable in law. Interim: rule in Interim Application No. 75 of 2025 made returnable on 12th March 2025 with ad-interim stay in terms of prayer clause (b) till next date; rule in Interim Application No. 76 of 2025 likewise returnable on 12th March 2025; notice waived by Mr. Vijay Killedar for the respondents.

Digitally signed VARSHA by VARSHAVIJAY VIJAYRAJGURU RAJGURUDate:2025.01.16 15:17:23 +0530

19-ao-662-2024-ia-76-2025.doc

varsha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 662 OF 2024

WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION NO 76 OF 2025

WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION NO 75 OF 2025

IN

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 662 OF 2024

Bharti Bhimrao Havaldar and Ors … Appellants/Applicants

vs.

Gajanan Ramu @ Ramchandra Choudhari … Respondents and Ors

Mr. N.J. Patil i/b. Mr. Akshay Patil for Appellants/Applicants. Mr. Vijay Killedar for Respondents.

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

DATED : 15^th JANUARY 2025

ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the respondents raises a preliminary objection that the appeal from order would not be maintainable as the order is revisable. I do not

find any substance in the objection. The impugned order is passed in the first appeal challenging the order passed by the trial court rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure

Page no. 1 of 3

19-ao-662-2024-ia-76-2025.doc

Code, 1908 (‘ CPC ’). Since, the rejection of plaint is a decree, the first appeal was filed by defendant nos. 4 to 6. The first appellate court has allowed the appeal and set aside the order rejecting the plaint. The first appellate court has remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh hearing. Hence, under clause (u) of Rule (1) of Order XLIII of CPC, the impugned order is appealable. Hence, the present appeal from order would be maintainable.

The appeal raises the following substantial questions of law. Hence admit.

I) In view of Section 63 of the Right to Fair Compensation

and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ( ‘said Act of 2013’ ) whether the suit would be barred to be tried by the Civil Court?

II) In view of the pleadings of the plaintiff regarding acquisition initiated under the said Act of 2013, whether the trial court’s order rejecting the plaint would be sustainable in law?

Mr. Killedar waives notice on behalf of the respondents.

Call for records and proceedings.

Printing is dispensed with.

Page no. 2 of 3

19-ao-662-2024-ia-76-2025.doc

6. Learned advocate for the appellants shall file private paper-

book within a period of one year from today.

INTERIM APPLICATION NO 75 OF 2025

Rule on interim relief in terms of prayer clause (a) is made returnable on 12^th March 2025.

Mr. Killedar waives notice on behalf of the respondents.

Till next date, there will be ad interim stay in terms of prayer clause (b).

INTERIM APPLICATION NO 76 OF 2025 .

Rule on interim relief in terms of prayer clause (a) is made returnable on 12^th March 2025.

Mr. Killedar waives notice on behalf of the respondents.

(GAURI GODSE, J.)

Page no. 3 of 3