Dismissed¶27

Mahesh Bhaskar Chaudhari v. Sudhakar Narayan Patil and Others

Bombay HC28 Jan 2026CA/9218/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay 976 days; Civil Application 9218/2025 in CRAST/15425/2025; neutral citation 2026:BHC-AUG:4624; Order VII Rule 11 CPC rejection of plaint; Hindu Succession Act 1956; propositus Tukadu Patil died before 1954; married daughters' share; amendment of 2005; partial rejection of plaint impermissible; multiple and independent reliefs; Central Bank of India v. Prabha Jain 2025 INSC 95; sale deed dated 11.02.2014; RCS No.120 of 2015; impugned order 06.06.2022 Exhibit-48; revision dismissed; Aurangabad bench; Shailesh P. Brahme J.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay of 976 days in preferring the revision application; Civil Revision Application thereafter dismissed. ¶27

Mahesh Bhaskar Chaudhari vs Sudhakar Narayan Patil… — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Condonation of delay of 976 days in preferring the revision application; Civil Revision Application thereafter dismissed.

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 976 days in preferring the revision application should be condoned. +2 more

¶11

Court's answer

The contents of the condonation application were not controverted and there are no malafides on the part of the applicant in approaching the Court belatedly.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

Adopting a pragmatic approach, the Court condoned the delay of 976 days in preferring the revision application.

¶15

Key takeaways

A trial is necessary to come to any definite conclusion; the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold and it would be open to the parties to agitate the ground during the course of trial.ratio¶25
The ground pressed into service (propositus died prior to 1954, before commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956) does not fall within the realm of Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C.ratio¶25
Since multiple reliefs are claimed and the reliefs of declaration in respect of the sale deed and injunction are independent, the plaint cannot be rejected partially, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Central Bank of India vs. Prabha Jain, 2025 INSC 95.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench (Shailesh P. Brahme, J.; 28.01.2026) - Civil Application No.9218 of 2025 in CRAST/15425/2025, Mahesh Bhaskar Chaudhari v. Sudhakar Narayan Patil & Ors. (i) Condonation of delay: delay of 976 days in filing the revision application condoned; contents of the application not controverted, no malafides found, averments resting on the merits of the matter cannot ground condonation, pragmatic approach adopted. (ii) Revision lay against order dated 06.06.2022 rejecting Exhibit-48 (an Order VII Rule 11 CPC application) in RCS No.120 of 2015, wherein respondent nos.1 to 7 sought declaration that sale deed dated 11.02.2014 is not binding upon them, with partition, separate possession and injunction. Held: the solitary ground - that propositus Tukadu Patil died prior to 1954, before commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, so married daughters cannot claim a share - does not fall within the realm of Order VII Rule 11 CPC; a trial is necessary and the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold; further, as multiple reliefs are claimed and declaration regarding the sale deed and injunction are independent reliefs, the plaint cannot be partially rejected, per Central Bank of India v. Prabha Jain, 2025 INSC 95. No illegality or perversity found in the impugned order; Civil Revision Application dismissed; parties free to agitate the ground at trial.

¶1

( 1 ) 101 CA 9218 OF 2025

¶2

2026:BHC-AUG:4624

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

101 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9218 OF 2025 IN CRAST/15425/2025

¶5

MAHESH BHASKAR CHAUDHARI VERSUS

¶6

SUDHAKAR NARAYAN PATIL AND OTHERS

¶7

Mr. Milind Madhukar Patil, Advocate for Applicant Mr. Vijay B. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.1

¶8

CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 28.01.2026

¶9

PER COURT :-

¶10

CIVIL APPLICATION

¶11

. Applicant seeks to condone the delay of 976 days in preferring revision application.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that for the reasons stated in the application, it is desirable to condone the delay. There are no malafides on the part of the applicant. The respondents have filed vexatious suit, which needs to be dealt with at the threshold. It is further submitted that no prejudice will be caused to the respondents if the delay is condoned.

¶13

Mr. Vijay Patil, learned counsel for respondent no.1 repels the submissions. He would submit that the delay is huge and inordinate and no proper justification is given in the application.

¶14

The contents of the application have not been controverted. I do not find any malafides on the part of the applicant to approach this Court belatedly. Most of the averments of the application are in respect of the merits of the matter which cannot be ground for condonation of delay. I propose to adopt the pragmatic approach.

¶15

The delay stands condoned.

¶16

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION STAMP NO.

¶17

Revision is directed against order dated 06.06.2022 passed below Exhibit-48 preferred under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. in RCS No.120 of 2015.

¶18

Respondent nos.1 to 7 have filed RCS No.120 of 2015 for declaration that sale deed dated 11.02.2014 is not binding upon them, along with reliefs of partition, separate possession and injunction. The suit is contested by filing written statement. Applicants and other defendants preferred application Exhibit-48 under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. objecting that there is no right to sue under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act,

¶19

( 3 ) 101 CA 9218 OF 2025

¶20

1956 because propositus Tukadu Totaram Patil died before 1954 and the married daughters would not be entitled to any share in the joint family property. By the impugned order, the said application came to be rejected.

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that neither there is any cause of action nor any right to sue for the plaintiff to claim partition. It is submitted that propositus Tukadu Patil died prior to 1954 before commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The daughters cannot claim any share in the property. It is submitted that it is abuse of process of law to proceed with the suit.

¶22

Per contra, Mr. Vijay Patil, learned counsel for respondent no.1 would submits that the plea raised by the applicant would not fall within the purview of Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. He would submit that it is a plea of defence which can be gone into during course of trial. It is further submitted that partial rejection of the plaint is impermissible in law.

¶23

I have gone through rival submissions of the parties. The solitary ground pressed into service for rejection of the plaint is that the propositus Tukadu Patil died prior to 1954, before commencement of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The right of the daughters is crystallized by amendment of 2005

¶24

( 4 ) 101 CA 9218 OF 2025

¶25

will not come to help of the plaintiff. I am of the considered view that a trial is necessary to come to any definite conclusion and the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold. It would be open for the parties to agitate the ground which can be examined during the course of trial. The ground pressed into service does not fall within the realm of Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C.

¶26

Another facet of the matter is that multiple reliefs are claimed by the plaintiffs. Relief of declaration in respect of sale deed and injunction can be said to be independent relief. The plaint cannot be rejected partially in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Central Bank of India vs. Prabha Jain reported in 2025 INSC 95 .

¶27

I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Revision application sans merits. Civil Revision Application is dismissed.

¶28

It would be open for the parties to agitate the ground during the course of trial.

¶29

( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. )

¶30

PRW

Mahesh Bhaskar Chaudhari v. Sudhakar Narayan Patil and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Bhaskar Chaudhari v. Sudhakar Narayan Patil and Others

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

Balkrushna Shankar Chavan and Suman Balkrushna Chavan Deid Throu Lrs Dnyaneshwar Balkrushan Chavan vs Lilabai Kisan Khandagale

Manisha Alias Minakshi Dinesh Jain vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Sandu S/O Rustum Kharat and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Collector, Jalna and Ors.

Munnaprasad Hariram Sharma vs Anuradha Dnyaneshwar Yadav

Madhav Alias Mahadev Nivrutti Pawar Died Thr Lrs Shakuntala Mahadev Pawar and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shankar Kalu Girase Died Thr Lrs Gorakh Shankar Girase and Ors. vs the Collector, Collector Office, Dhule and Ors.