Dismissed¶8

Hanumant Bhimrao Linge v. Keshav Vithoba Linge

Bombay HC14 Nov 2025WP/3891/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Striking off of pleadings; Order VI Rule 17 and Order VI Rule 16, Civil Procedure Code 1908; rejection of application below Exhibit 45; Regular Civil Suit No. 11 of 2022; Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pandharpur; decree of perpetual injunction; Block Nos. 135 and 136; Gat No. 133; destruction of bandh and encroachment; Village Bhalwani, Taluka Pandharpur, District Solapur; writ petition dismissed by Bombay High Court, Kolhapur Circuit Bench (S. G. Chapalgaonkar, J.) on 14 November 2025.

What did the court decide?

A plaintiff who has claimed relief of perpetual injunction in respect of both lands cultivated by him can seek relief of injunction in respect of Block No. 136, even though the petitioner-defendant owns land only in Block No. 133 adjacent to Block No. 135. ¶4

Hanumant Bhimrao Linge Vs Keshav Vithoba Linge — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Trial Court rightly rejected the petitioner's application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking striking off of the pleading in respect of paragraph No. 1A (Block No. 135), i.e., whether the plaintiff's reference to Block No. 136 in the suit for perpetual injunction was unnecessary.

¶3

Court's answer

¶4

Ratio / Principle

The reference to land Block No. 136 in the plaint is not unnecessary, as the plaintiff filed the suit with an apprehension of disturbance to his possession by the defendant in both lands, which are made part of the suit claim.

¶6

Key takeaways

The learned Trial Court rightly refused to exercise jurisdiction under Order VI Rule 16 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to strike out the matter from the pleading.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 3891 of 2024 (High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Circuit Bench at Kolhapur, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction; S. G. Chapalgaonkar, J.; decided 14 November 2025) — Challenge to order dated 7th November 2023 passed below Exhibit 45 by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pandharpur in Regular Civil Suit No. 11 of 2022, rejecting the defendant's application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for striking off pleadings in respect of paragraph No. 1A (Block No. 135). The respondent-plaintiff sought a decree of perpetual injunction in respect of Block Nos. 135 and 136, Village Bhalwani, Taluka Pandharpur, District Solapur, pleading that the defendant, owner of land in Gat No. 133, destroyed the western side of the bandh and was attempting to encroach. Held: (i) a plaintiff who claims relief of perpetual injunction in respect of both lands cultivated by him may seek relief in respect of Block No. 136 even though the defendant owns land only in Block No. 133 adjacent to Block No. 135; (ii) the reference to Block No. 136 is not unnecessary, as the suit was filed with an apprehension of disturbance to the plaintiff's possession by the defendant in both lands; (iii) the Trial Court rightly refused to exercise jurisdiction under Order VI Rule 16 CPC. Writ petition dismissed; pending interlocutory application(s), if any, disposed of.

¶1

14 - WP - 3891 - 2024 .doc

¶2

VAIBHAV RAMESH JADHAV Digitally signed byVAIBHAV RAMESH JADHAV Date: 2025.11.17 10:43:57 +0530

¶3

VRJ

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.3891 OF 2024

¶6

Hanumant Bhimrao Linge … Petitioner V/s. Keshav Vithoba Linge … Respondent

¶7

Mr. Balkrushna G. Patil i/by Mr. Jayendra Khairnar for the petitioner.

¶8

CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 14, 2025

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

Present writ petition takes exception to order dated 7th November 2023 passed below Exhibit 45 by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pandharpur in Regular Civil Suit No. 11 of 2022, whereby application filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 has been rejected.

¶11

Respondent–plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 11 of 2022 seeking a decree of perpetual injunction against the petitioner–defendant in respect of Block Nos. 135 and 136 situated at Village Bhalwani, Taluka Pandharpur, District Solapur.

¶12

¶13

14 - WP - 3891 - 2024 .doc

¶14

Respondent has specifically pleaded that he is cultivating both lands. The land of defendant is adjacent to land Block Nos. 135. The defendant, who owns land in Gat No. 133, has destroyed western side of bandh and is trying to encroach upon property of plaintiff. Petitioner refuted the claim of plaintiff by filing a written statement. Petitioner then filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for striking off pleadings in respect of paragraph No. 1A, i.e., Block No. 135. It is the contention of petitioner that dispute in the suit is only in respect of bandh between land Gat Nos. 135 and 133, and he do not own land on the boundary of Block No. 136.

¶15

Learned Trial Court, after considering the submissions advanced, observed that plaintiff has claimed relief of perpetual injunction in respect of both lands cultivated by him. It is for the plaintiff to prove obstruction at the hands of defendant in both lands. Therefore, merely because petitioner owns land in Block No.133, which is adjacent to Block No.135, it cannot be said that the plaintiff cannot seek relief of injunction in respect of land in Block No.136.

¶16

Order VI Rule 16 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, gives

¶17

¶18

14 - WP - 3891 - 2024 .doc

¶19

discretion to Court to strike out any matter in any pleading which is unnecessary, tends to prejudice, or is in the nature of abuse of process of the Court.

¶20

Although petitioner is trying to contend that the reference to

¶21

land Block No.136 is unnecessary, such contention cannot be accepted as the plaintiff filed suit with an apprehension of disturbance to his possession by defendant in both lands, which are made part of suit claim.

¶22