Pramod Pandurang Musale vs Deepak Krushna Mhatre — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Pramod Pandurang Musale vs Deepak Krushna Mhatre — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applications partly allowed; impugned orders dated 2 December 2023 quashed and set aside; applications (Exh.34 and 20) for rejection of the plaint restored to the file of the learned Civil Judge for afresh determination on merits after an effective opportunity of hearing and recording reasons; parties directed to appear before the learned Civil Judge on 1 December 2025.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applications (Exh.34 and 20) for rejection of the plaint in SCS No.154 of 2024 were rightly rejected, given that the impugned orders failed to consider the applicability of the First or Second Part of Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and the time from which the period of limitation would commence to run.

Court's answer

The impugned orders cannot be sustained because they singularly lack consideration of the applicability of the First or Second Part of Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963; the learned Civil Judge did not at all refer to the governing Article or the time from which limitation would commence.

Ratio / Principle

Since the aspect of limitation was not adequately considered while deciding the application for rejection of the plaint, the applications must be remitted back to the learned Civil Judge for afresh decisions, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties and recording reasons.

Key takeaways

All questions are kept open for consideration; this Court has not delved into the merits of the matter for the purpose of determination of the prayer for rejection of the plaint.obiter¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (N.J. Jamadar, J.), 11 November 2025 — Civil Revision Applications Nos.162 and 236 of 2024: Orders dated 2 December 2023 of the learned Civil Judge, Kalyan rejecting the Applicants–Defendant Nos.1 and 2's applications (Exh.34 and 20) for rejection of the plaint in SCS No.154 of 2024 (a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale executed in December 2016, with the suits instituted on 27 April 2022) were quashed and set aside. The High Court held the impugned orders unsustainable as they singularly lacked consideration of the applicability of the First or Second Part of Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and the time from which limitation would commence, the Civil Judge having merely observed that limitation is a mixed question of law and facts to be decided at trial. The applications for rejection of the plaint were restored to the file of the learned Civil Judge for afresh determination on merits after an effective opportunity of hearing and recording reasons; parties to appear on 1 December 2025; all questions kept open and merits not delved into.

2025:BHC-AS:48195

33 cra 162 of 2024.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO162 OF 2024

Pramod Pandurang Musale and Ors ... Applicants versus Deepak Krushna Mhatre and Anr. … Respondents

WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.236 OF 2024

Pandurang Ganpat Musale ... Applicant versus Deepak Krushna Mhatre and Ors. … Respondents

Mr. Vikram Walawalkar for Applicants in both matters.

Mr. Rajendra Haridas with Ms. Priyanka Lanke i/by Mr. Abhijit Patil, for Respondents.

CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J.

DATE : 11 NOVEMBER 2025

P.C.

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

The challenge in these applications is to orders dated 2 December 2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Kalyan, whereby the applications (Exh.34 and 20 respectively) preferred by the Applicants – Defendant Nos.1 and 2 for rejection of the plaint in SCS No.154 of 2024, on the ground of absence of cause of action and bar of limitation came to be rejected.

The bar of limitation was premised on the fact that the agreement for

sale, for the specific performance of the contract contained therein the suits came to be instituted, was executed in the month of December 2016 and the

SSP 1/3

33 cra 162 of 2024.doc

suits came to be instituted on 27 April 2022. By the impugned orders, learned Civil Judge has rejected the applications by observing that, limitation is a mixed question of law and facts and it will be decided at the trial.

The impugned orders singularly lack consideration on the aspect of the applicability of the First or Second Part of Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In fact, learned Civil Judge has not at all referred to the Article which would govern the instant suit and the time from which the period of limitation would commence to run.

In the aforesaid view of the matter, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. Since the aspect of limitation has not been adequately considered while deciding the application for rejection of the plaint, it is necessary to remit the applications back to the learned Civil Judge for afresh decisions, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties and recording reasons.

Hence, the following order :

ORDER

(i) The Applications stand partly allowed. (ii) The impugned orders dated 2 December 2023 stand quashed

and set aside.

(iii) The applications (Exh.34 and 20 respectively) for rejection of the plaint stand restored to the file of the learned Civil Judge for afresh determination on merits, after providing an effective opportunity of hearing to

SSP 2/3

33 cra 162 of 2024.doc

the parties and recording reasons.

(iv) The parties shall appear before the learned Civil Judge on 1 December 2025.

(v) It is hereby made clear that all questions are kept open for consideration and this Court has not delved into the merits of the matter for the purpose of determination of the prayer for rejection of the plaint.

( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )

SSP 3/3

Signed by: S.S.Phadke Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 12/11/2025 16:02:44