Dismissed¶¶28

Nandkumar Kisan Gote and Others v. Rajendra Baburao Gawade and Others

Bombay HC19 Nov 2025IA/7193/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rejection of plaint; Order VII Rule 11 CPC; limitation plea on the face of the plaint; partition and separate possession suit; declaration ancillary to partition; under-valuation and court fees objection; Section 115 CPC revisional jurisdiction; no jurisdictional error; Bombay High Court; Gauri Godse J.; 10-12-2025; C.R.A. No. 46 of 2022 with I.A. No. 7193 of 2025; Nandkumar Kisan Gote v. Rajendra Baburao Gawade; civil revision application dismissed; contentions kept open for trial.

What did the court decide?

The substantial relief in the suit is partition and separate possession; the declaration prayer is founded on it, and the cause of action pleaded in paragraph no. 17 of the plaint is supported by the substantive pleadings in the earlier paragraphs. ¶¶23

Nandkumar Kisan Gote and Others vs Rajendra Baburao Gawade and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the prayer for declaration is barred by limitation on a plain reading of the cause of action pleaded in the plaint. +1 more

¶¶16

Court's answer

¶¶23

Ratio / Principle

Since the pleadings support the prayer for partition and separate possession and the cause of action for the prayer was made within limitation, the suit warrants a trial and the plaintiffs are entitled to lead evidence; the trial court rightly refused to reject the plaint at the threshold.

¶¶27

Key takeaways

The objection of under-valuation cannot be considered at the Order VII Rule 11 stage because there is no inquiry regarding under-valuation of the suit and no order for payment of court fees or correcting the valuation; the trial court rightly observed that, if found necessary at trial, the plaintiffs can be directed to make the valuation and pay the proper court fee.ratio¶¶23
No jurisdictional error or other manifest error appears in the reasons recorded in the impugned order warranting interference by the High Court in exercise of its power under Section 115 of the CPC.ratio¶¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Gauri Godse, J.; 10 December 2025), Civil Revision Application No. 46 of 2022 with Interim Application No. 7193 of 2025 — Nandkumar Kisan Gote v. Rajendra Baburao Gawade. Original defendant nos. 1 to 5 challenged the trial court's refusal to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Held: the substantial relief in the suit is partition and separate possession, and the prayer for declaration (that the sale deed and agreement inter se the defendants will not bind the plaintiffs' share) rests on it; the cause of action pleaded in paragraph 17 of the plaint is supported by substantive pleadings and was made within limitation, so the suit warrants trial. The under-valuation/court-fee objection fails at the Order VII Rule 11 stage as no inquiry or order on valuation or court fees exists; the trial court rightly left liberty to direct proper valuation and court fee at trial if necessary. No jurisdictional or manifest error under Section 115 CPC. Observations confined to the rejection-of-plaint application; rival contentions kept open for trial. Civil revision application dismissed; pending applications disposed of as infructuous.

¶1

Digitally signed VARSHA by VARSHAVIJAY VIJAY RAJGURU RAJGURU Date:2025.12.22 11:16:05 +0530

¶2

2-cra-46-2022-ia-7193-2023.doc

¶3

varsha

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 46 OF 2022

¶6

WITH

¶7

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7193 OF 2025

¶8

Nandkumar Kisan Gote and Others … Applicants

¶9

vs. Rajendra Baburao Gawade and Others … Respondents

¶10

Mr. Tushar Sonawane for the Applicants. Mr. Ramdas Hake Patil for Respondent Nos. 12 to 14.

¶11

Mr. Sachin Ramrao Pawar for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

¶12

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

¶13

DATED : 10^th DECEMBER 2025

¶14

ORDER:

¶15

This application is filed by the original defendant nos. 1 to 5 to challenge the order passed by the trial court rejecting their application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘ CPC ’).

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prayer in the suit for declaration is barred by the law of limitation on plain reading of the cause of action pleaded in the plaint. He submits that the suit is under valued and thus, the plaint also deserves to be

¶17

Page no. 1 of 4

¶18

2-cra-46-2022-ia-7193-2023.doc

¶19

rejected at the threshold for under valuation and non-payment of proper court fees. He therefore submits that, considering the plain reading of the plaint, the application deserves to be rejected at the threshold.

¶20

Learned counsel for the plaintiffs supports the impugned order. He submits that the suit is a substantive suit for seeking partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs’ share. Based on the prayers for partition and separate possession, the plaintiffs have claimed for the declaration that the sale deed and the agreement falsely executed inter-se between the defendants will not be binding upon the plaintiffs’ share. He points out the cause of action pleaded in the plaint for seeking partition and separate possession that arose in August 2021, when the plaintiffs’ share was denied by defendant nos. 1 to 6. He submits that the objections on the under valuation cannot be considered at the time of considering the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, as there is no order passed for correcting the valuation and payment of any court fees. He points out the observation by the trial court in paragraph no. 7 of the impugned order which clarifies that at the time of trial, if it is found necessary, the plaintiffs can be directed to make the valuation and pay the proper court fee.

¶21

Page no. 2 of 4

¶22

2-cra-46-2022-ia-7193-2023.doc

¶23

I have carefully perused the papers of the plaint. The substantial relief is for partition and separate possession. Based on the prayer for partition and separate possession, the prayer is for a declaration in respect of the undivided share of the plaintiffs in the suit property. The cause of action and the events prior to the cause of action are substantially pleaded in the plaint. The plaintiffs have also pleaded regarding the objections on the area mentioned in the agreement for sale and the agreement executed inter-se between the parties that would affect the plaintiffs’ right seeking partition and separate possession of the specific share. The cause of action pleaded in paragraph no. 17 of the plaint is supported by the substantive pleadings in the earlier paragraphs to support the claim on partition and separate possession. There is no inquiry regarding the under valuation of the suit, and no order is passed and for the payment of court fees and correcting the valuation. Thus, the trial court has rightly observed in paragraph no.7, if it is found necessary, the plaintiffs can be directed to make the valuation and pay the proper court fee.

¶24

Considering the pleading to support the prayer for partition and separate possession and the cause of action for the prayer made within limitation, the suit would warrant a trial, and the plaintiffs would be entitled to lead evidence to support their

¶25

Page no. 3 of 4

¶26

2-cra-46-2022-ia-7193-2023.doc

¶27

contention. Thus, the trial court has rightly refused to reject the plaint at the threshold. I do not find any jurisdictional error or any other manifest error in the reasons recorded in the impugned order, warranting interference by this Court in exercise of power under Section 115 of the CPC.

¶28

The civil revision application is therefore dismissed.

¶29

Needless to clarify that the observations in the impugned order and this order are restricted to the decision of the application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. Hence, the rival contentions of the parties are kept open to be decided in the suit.

¶30

In view of the disposal of the civil revision application, the pending applications are disposed of as infructuous.

¶31

(GAURI GODSE, J.)

¶32

Page no. 4 of 4

Nandkumar Kisan Gote and Others v. Rajendra Baburao Gawade and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nandkumar Kisan Gote and Others v. Rajendra Baburao Gawade and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Idbi Trusteeship Services Limited vs Ozone Infra Con Private Limited

Reliance Capital Limited vs State of Maharashtra

El Dorado Biotech Pvt. Ltd. vs Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd.

Anchor Point Developers Private Limited 847/2024 vs Om Samruddhi Sites Private Limited

Smt Bhimabai Kondiba Londhe vs Maruti Ranu Londhe

Mukund Tukaram Tapkir vs Ramdas Vishnu Murkute