Shri. Ramesh S/O Bhagirath Rander vs Shri. Anil Hariprasad Jejani and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Shri. Ramesh S/O Bhagirath Rander vs Shri. Anil Hariprasad Jejani and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim directions only (revision application kept pending): notice to respondents returnable on 12.11.2025; liberty to the applicant to file adjournment applications in the objection proceedings in execution case No.63 of 2020 and in Spl.C.S. No.459 of 2023, each to be considered favourably by the trial court; matter listed on 12.11.2025 at 02.30 p.m.

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaint in Spl.C.S. No.459 of 2023 ought to be rejected on the grounds that the suit claims time-barred relief and there is absence of cause of action. +1 more

Court's answer

Notice to be issued to the respondents, returnable on 12th November 2025.

Ratio / Principle

Applicant permitted to file an application for adjournment in the objection proceedings in the execution case bearing No.63 of 2020; if filed, the trial court should consider it favourably.

Key takeaways

Applicant also permitted to file an application for adjournment in Spl.C.S. No.459 of 2023 pending before Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur; if filed, same to be considered by the trial court favourably.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench — Civil Revision Application No.117 of 2025 (Shri Ramesh s/o Bhagirath Rander v. Shri Anil Hariprasad Jejani & Others), Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J., 06.11.2025. The applicant challenges the trial court's order dated 20.12.2024 rejecting his application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC in Spl.C.S. No.459 of 2023, a suit involving challenge to sale deed dated 24.10.2020, contending that the plaint claims time-barred relief and suffers from absence of cause of action, and that the issues in the suit overlap with objection proceedings in execution case No.63 of 2020 under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC, in which the applicant is the decree holder. INTERIM ORDER: notice issued to respondents returnable on 12.11.2025; applicant permitted to file adjournment applications both in the execution objection proceedings and in the civil suit, to be considered favourably by the trial court; matter listed on 12.11.2025 at 02.30 p.m. Merits of the challenge left open.

1 49. CRA 117 of 2025.odt

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

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.117 OF 2025

SHRI. RAMESH S/O BHAGIRATH RANDER VERSUS

SHRI. ANIL HARIPRASAD JEJANI AND OTHERS

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's orders Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders

Mr. M.G. Bhangde, Senior Advocate a/b Mr. H.D. Dangre, Advocate for Applicant.

Mr. A.C. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

Mr. Sudarshan Dhawale, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 8.

CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.

DATED : 06^th NOVEMBER 2025

Heard learned Senior Advocate for the applicant.

The applicant’s challenge is to the order dated 20.12.2024, passed by the trial court, rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC, in Spl.C.S. No.459 of 2023.

It is submitted that the plaint deserved to be rejected being filed in a suit to claim time barred relief and in absence of cause of action.

Learned Senior Advocate for the applicant submits that the controversy involved in the civil suit with respect to challenge to the sale deed dated 24.10.2020 is also involved in execution proceedings bearing No.63 of 2020, arising out of an application under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC. It is also pointed out that the issues involved in both the proceedings are overlapping and will have bearing on each other particularly considering the prayer clauses in both the proceedings. It is stated that the proceedings of objection in

2 49. CRA 117 of 2025.odt

execution case are pending for cross-examination and considering the fact that the instant revision application is pending, the applicant, who is decree holder in the said execution case, is entitled to prosecute the proceedings after the controversy involved in the instant revision application is decided.

Having regard to the controversy involved, issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 12^th November 2025.

Advocate Mr. A.C. Dharmadhikari, who appears on caveat, waives service of notice on behalf of respondent No.1.

Advocate Mr. Sudarshan Dhawale, who appears suo moto, waives service on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 8.

Having regard to the fact that the instant revision application is pending and considering the controversy involved, the applicant is permitted to file an application for adjournment in the objection proceedings in the execution case bearing No.63 of 2020. If same is filed, trial court should consider it favourably.

Further, the applicant is also permitted to file an application for adjournment in Spl.C.S. No.459 of 2023, pending before Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur and if it is filed, same be considered by the trial court favourably.

List this matter on 12^th November 2025 at 02.30 p.m.

(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)

asd