Dismissed¶40

Medha Manoj Kaleshwar v. Geetabai Laxman Dhumal and Other

Bombay HC11 Nov 2025CRA/523/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay HC CRA 523/2025 dismissed; Order VII Rule 11(b) CPC plaint-rejection application properly refused; limitation held a mixed question of law and facts warranting trial; Article 59 Limitation Act argument rejected as inferential (2018 revenue-record discovery, not instrument knowledge); plaint cannot be rejected in part — injunction and damages claims for 17/20 January 2025 obstruction and crop damage survive; Sejal Glass (2018) 11 SCC 780 and Madhav Prasad Aggarwal (2019) 7 SCC 158 referred; Mutation Entry No. 2349 cancelled by Deputy Director, Land Records on 27 December 2024.

What did the court decide?

None ¶40

Medha Manoj Kaleshwar vs Geetabai Laxman Dhumal and Other — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the Plaint should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground that the suit is ex-facie barred by limitation, given the Plaintiffs' averred 2018 knowledge and institution of the suit in 2025. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

A Plaint cannot be rejected in part qua a particular prayer, property or party; even if one of the reliefs survives, the suit must go for trial. Here the Plaintiffs seek injunction and damages on the basis of proprietary and possessory title, with a specific plea of obstruction and damage to standing crops and trees on 17th and 20th January 2025, so those reliefs survive and the suit must proceed.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

The submission that the Plaintiffs obtained knowledge of the instrument in favour of the Applicant in 2018 is at best inferential; what the Plaintiffs noticed in 2018 were incorrect Revenue Record entries, and when the Plaintiffs first acquired knowledge of the subject instruments warrants investigation into facts. The learned Civil Judge committed no error in holding that limitation is, in the facts of this case, a mixed question of law and facts.

¶33

Key takeaways

The Court finds no jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Civil Judge in rejecting the Order VII Rule 11(b) Application.ratio¶39
While limitation is generally a mixed question of law and facts, where ex-facie the suit is barred by limitation and no further investigation into the facts is warranted, the Civil Court would be justified in rejecting the Plaint on that ground (converse scenario acknowledged; not found applicable here).obiter¶26
In an application for rejection of the Plaint only the averments in the Plaint and the documents annexed thereto are relevant, and the Plaint must be read as a whole in a meaningful and not formalistic manner, so that clever drafting designed to camouflage the real nature of the suit or circumvent a maintainability bar is exposed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Jamadar, J., 11 November 2025) dismissed Civil Revision Application No. 523 of 2025, upholding the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune's order of 3 September 2025 rejecting Defendant No.9's application under Order VII Rule 11(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to reject the Plaint. Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 sued for declarations that Sale Deeds of 8 January 2007, 4 May 2011, 10 March 2012 and 25 April 2016 are void, for perpetual injunction, and Rs.5,25,000/- compensation for damaged crops and trees; the Applicant (Defendant No.9, purchaser under the 10 March 2012 deed) urged that, on Article 59 of the Limitation Act, the suit was ex-facie time-barred given the Plaintiffs' 2018 discovery of the mutations. Held: the 2018-knowledge plea is inferential and when the Plaintiffs first knew of the instruments requires factual investigation, making limitation a mixed question of law and facts; and a Plaint cannot be rejected in part — the injunction and damages claims resting on proprietary and possessory title (obstruction and crop/tree destruction of 17 and 20 January 2025) survive, so the suit must go to trial. Sejal Glass Ltd v Navilan Merchants Pvt Ltd, (2018) 11 Supreme Court Cases 780, and Madhav Prasad Aggarwal v Axis Bank Ltd, (2019) 7 Supreme Court Cases 158, were referred to as useful on partial rejection of plaints.

¶1

3-CRA-523-2025.DOC

¶2

Arun Sankpal

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 523 OF 2025

¶5

Medha Manoj Kaleshwar ..Applicant Versus Geetabai Laxman Dhumal & Ors …Respondents

¶6

Mr. Aashay Rabade, for the Applicant.

¶7

CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 11^th NOVEMBER 2025

¶8

ORDER:

¶9

This Revision Application is directed against an order dated 3^rd September 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, whereby an Application preferred by the Applicant-Defendant No.9 for rejection of the Plaint under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“the Code”), came to be rejected.

¶10

ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL

¶11

Digitally signed by ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Date: 2025.11.13 19:13:03 +0530

¶12

The Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 have instituted the suit seeking declarations that the Sale Deeds executed by the Defendants on 8^th January 2007, 4^th May 2011, 10^th March 2012 and 25^th April 2016 are void and illegal and do not bind the Plaintiffs interest in the suit properties, and perpetual injunction to restrain the Defendants from creating third party interest in the suit properties, change the nature of

¶13

1/6

¶14

3-CRA-523-2025.DOC

¶15

the suit properties and cause obstruction to the possession and cultivation of the Plaintiffs over the suit properties and not to dispossess the Plaintiffs from the suit properties without following due process of law, and also to pay compensation of Rs.5,25,000/- for having caused damage to the standing crops and trees.

¶16

The Defendant Nos.6, 1A/1, 7 and 8 have executed the Sale Deed dated 10^th March 2012 in favour of the Applicant-Defendant No.9. Thus, the Defendant No.9 filed the Application for rejection of the Plaint primarily on the ground that the suit is ex-facie barred by law of limitation as from the perusal of the averments in the Plaint it would become evident that the cause of action has accrued to the Plaintiffs in the year 2018, and, yet, the suit came to be instituted in the year 2025.

¶17

By the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge rejected the Application observing, inter alia, that apart from the prayers of declarations it was the claim of the Plaintiffs that the Defendants were causing obstruction to the peaceful possession and cultivation of the Plaintiffs over the suit properties and thus injunctive reliefs were sought. Whether the suit is barred by limitation is a mixed question of facts and law and that can only be decided after recording evidence.

¶18

Mr. Aashay Rabade, the learned Counsel for the Applicant, submitted that the learned Civil Judge completely misconstrued the averments in the Plaint. Inviting attention of the Court to the averments

¶19

2/6

¶20

3-CRA-523-2025.DOC

¶21

in paragraph 16 of the Plaint, wherein there is a reference to the fact that the Plaintiffs gathered the documents from the Revenue Department in the year 2018, and, thereupon, learnt about the mutation of the names of the Defendants in the Record of Rights of the suit properties, it was submitted that in the year 2018 itself, the Plaintiffs became aware of the instruments in respect of which declaration is sought by the Plaintiffs. Thus, in view of the provisions of Article 59 of the Limitation Act the suit would be ex-facie barred by law of limitation and, therefore, the Plaint was required to be rejected.

¶22

In an Application for rejection of the Plaint only the averments in the Plaint and the documents annexed thereto are required to be taken into account. The defence of the Defendants as manifested in the Written Statement, or for that matter the Application for rejection of the Plaint, is not at all germane to the determination of the prayer for rejection of the Plaint. A Plaint is, however, required to be read as a whole and that too in a meaningful and not formalistic manner. If an endeavour is made to camouflage the real nature of the suit or circumvent the bar to the maintainability of suit by resorting to the clever drafting, it is the duty of the Court to remove the gloss and nip the fruitless litigation in the bud.

¶23

Generally, the aspect of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts. However, a situation is not inconceivable that ex-facie the suit is

¶24

3/6

¶25

3-CRA-523-2025.DOC

¶26

barred by law of limitation and no further investigation into the facts is warranted. In such a case, the Civil Court would be justified in rejecting the Plaint on the ground that it is ex-facie barred by law of limitation.

¶27

In the instant case a meaningful reading of the Plaint would indicate that the Plaintiffs claim that after Waghu Raghu Kandhare, the predecessor-in-title of the Defendant Nos. 1 to 6, sold his share out of the land bearing Survey No. 306 Hissa No. 2C/2/1 to Namdev Ganpat Jadhav by Sale Deed dated 24^th May 1982, the said Waghu Kandhare did not hold any land out of Survey No. 306. Yet on the basis of the patently incorrect entries made in the Consolidation Proceedings, the successor-in-interest of Waghu Kandhare were shown to be holders of portion of property bearing Survey No. 306. On the basis of those incorrect and illegal entries in the Record of Rights, the Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 have executed various Sale Deeds in favour of the purchasers who have been impleaded as party-Defendants to the suit.

¶28

In the year 2018, when the Plaintiffs gathered the documents from the Revenue Authorities, the incorrect entries came to light. An Appeal was preferred before the Deputy Director of Land Records, and pursuant to the decision of the Deputy Director, Land Records, dated 27^th December 2024, Mutation Entry No. 2349 has been cancelled. The Defendants, thereafter, started to cause obstruction to the possession and cultivation of the Plaintiffs over the suit property 1B which was sold

¶29

4/6

¶30

3-CRA-523-2025.DOC

¶31

by late Waghu Kandhare in favour of the predecessor-in-title of the Plaintiffs under a Sale Deed, and on 17^th January 2025 and 20^th January 2025, the Defendants caused damage to the standing crops and trees, on the suit property 1B. Hence the suit for declaration, injunction and damages.

¶32

From the perusal of the averments in the Plaint, it becomes evident that the Plaintiffs claim proprietary and possessory title over the suit property 1B. The Plaintiffs claim that they have been in possession of the suit property and the Defendants have caused obstruction to Plaintiffs possession and cultivation of the suit property.

¶33

The submission on behalf of the Applicant that in the year 2018 itself, the Plaintiffs got knowledge of the instrument in favour of the Applicant is, at best, inferential. What the Plaintiffs have referred to in paragraph 16 of the Plaint is the fact that in the year 2018 incorrect entries in the Revenue Record were noticed and, thereafter, the Plaintiffs pursued the matter. Thus, it appears that the question as to when the Plaintiffs first got knowledge of the subject instruments would warrant investigation into the facts. The learned Civil Judge thus cannot be said to have committed any error in observing that, in the facts of the case, the aspect of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts.

¶34

Even otherwise, the Plaintiffs have, as noted above, sought injunctive reliefs and damages on the basis of the proprietary and

¶35

5/6

¶36

3-CRA-523-2025.DOC

¶37

possessory title over the suit land. A specific case that on 17^th January 2025 and 20^th January 2025, the Defendants caused obstruction to the Plaintiffs possession and cultivation of the suit property and also caused damages to the standing crops and trees by employing a JCB machine, has been pleaded.

¶38

It is trite, a Plaint cannot be rejected in part qua a particular prayer, property or party. Even if one of the reliefs survives, the suit must go for trial. A useful reference, in this context, can be made to the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Sejal Glass Limited vs Navilan Merchants Private Limited¹ and Madhav Prasad Aggarwal and another vs. Axis Bank Limited and another.²

¶39

In the aforesaid view of the matter, this Court does not find any jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Civil Judge.

¶40

Resultantly, the Civil Revision Application stands dismissed.

¶41

1 (2018) 11 Supreme Court Cases 780.

¶42

2 (2019) 7 Supreme Court Cases 158.

¶43

6/6

Medha Manoj Kaleshwar v. Geetabai Laxman Dhumal and Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Medha Manoj Kaleshwar v. Geetabai Laxman Dhumal and Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ganesh Ramchandra Naik vs Manohar Krishna Madhavi (M.K.)

Yakub Baig Trust (Thr Its Chief Trustee) vs the Maharashtra State Board of Waqfs and Ors.

Kuber Kartik New Link Road Premises Co-Operative Society Ltd. vs Shri Krishna Premises Co-Operative Society Ltd.

Pramod Pandurang Musale vs Deepak Krushna Mhatre

Vaishnavi Caim Sambuddha vs Alok Nath Sambuddha

Kartik Harshad Jhaveri vs Charanjit Arora and Anr.