Saroj W/O Krushna Hadke v. Dr. Riyajul Rab S/O Faizul Rab and Others

Bombay HC26 Sept 2025CRA/101/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintainability of Order VII Rule 11 CPC rejection-of-plaint application before the appellate court in a Section 96 CPC appeal; concession of non-maintainability; consent order directing that observations on limitation in the impugned order dated 08/08/2025 of Ad-hoc District Judge-2, Nagpur be ignored; appeal R.C.A. No.543/2017 to be decided on own merits; rejection of Exh.40 application maintained; Nagpur Bench, Bombay High Court.

What did the court decide?

By consent: (i) the observations on merits/limitation in the impugned order dated 08/08/2025 shall not be considered while deciding the appeal; (ii) the appeal shall be decided on its own merits; (iii) the rejection of the application at Exh.40 is maintained as not maintainable. ¶¶18

Saroj W/O Krushna Hadke Vs Dr. Riyajul Rab S/O Faizul Rab and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether an application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is maintainable before the Appellate Court hearing an appeal under Section 96 CPC. +1 more

¶¶14

Court's answer

An application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is not maintainable before the Appellate Court seized of an appeal under Section 96 CPC; accordingly, the order rejecting the application at Exh.40 is maintained.

¶¶21

Ratio / Principle

The observations on the merits of limitation made in the impugned order dated 08/08/2025 will not be taken into consideration while deciding the appeal; the appeal will be decided on its own merits without being influenced by those observations.

¶¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), Civil Revision Application No.101 of 2025: The applicants, legal representatives of original defendant No.2 in R.C.A. No.543/2017 (appeal under Section 96 CPC), had applied before the Appellate Court for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground of limitation. The learned Ad-hoc District Judge-2, Nagpur, by order dated 08/08/2025 on application at Exh.40, rejected the application while making observations on the merits of limitation, by which the applicants were aggrieved. In the revision, the applicants' advocate conceded that the Order VII Rule 11 application was not maintainable before the Appellate Court. With the consent of both sides, the High Court directed that the observations on limitation in the impugned order shall not be taken into consideration while deciding the appeal, that the appeal be decided on its own merits uninfluenced by those observations, and maintained the rejection of the Exh.40 application since it was not maintainable.

¶1

1 / 2

¶2

58.cra.101.25

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶4

Civil Revision Application No.101 of 2025

¶5

Saroj w/o Krushna Hadke (Since deceased), through Legal Representatives

¶6

vs.

¶7

Dr. Riyajvi Rab s/o Faizul Rab

¶8

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Office notes, Office Memoranda of

¶9

Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶10

Mr. R.M. Sharma, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr. S.S. Bhalerao, Advocate for the Non-Applicant.

¶11

Heard the learned Advocates for the parties.

¶12

Leave to delete the names of non-applicant Nos.2(i) to 2(iii) is granted. Necessary amendment be carried out forthwith.

¶13

The application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) was filed by the present applicants, who are the legal representatives of original defendant No.2 in an appeal filed under Section 96 of C.P.C. being R.C.A. No.543/2017.

¶14

The contention was that the plaint was barred by limitation. The learned Appellate Court has entertained the application for rejection of plaint, although an objection was raised by respondent No.1-original plaintiff that application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. is not maintainable before the Appellate Court.

¶15

The learned Advocate for the applicant concedes to the legal position that the application was not maintainable, however, he states that revision is filed since the learned Appellate Court has made

¶16

58.cra.101.25

¶17

2 / 2

¶18

certain observations with respect to the merits on the issue of limitation by which the applicants are aggrieved. With the consent of both the learned Advocates, the following order is passed :

¶19

i. The observation on merits of the matter made in the impugned order dated 08/08/2025 passed by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-2, Nagpur on application at Exh.40 in RC.A. No.543/2017 will not be taken into consideration while deciding the appeal on merits.

¶20

ii. The appeal will be decided on its own merits without being influenced by the observations pertaining to limitation made in the said order.

¶21

iii. However, the order of rejection of application at Exh.40 is maintained since the said application is not maintainable.

¶22

JUDGE

¶23

*sandesh

Saroj W/O Krushna Hadke v. Dr. Riyajul Rab S/O Faizul Rab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saroj W/O Krushna Hadke v. Dr. Riyajul Rab S/O Faizul Rab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Gajanan S/O. Sakharam Kale Vs the Asstt. Gen. Manager S.B.I. and 5 Others

Kantabai Mohanlal Chaudhari Vs Kesarbai Mohanlal Chaudhari

Rajkumar S/O Waman Shelke and Others vs Devanand S/O Waman Shelke and Others

Prakash Jamnadas Anandani and Others Vs Nilkanthrao Kashirao Deshmukh and Others

Dipali Pravin Chopkar Vs Pravin Krushnaji Chopkar

Harish S/O Shivdayal Massand (Dead) Thr. Lrs. Vs Gospel for Asia, Thiruvalla Thr. President Dr. K.P. Yohannan S/O Kadappilaril, Punnose Chacko and 1