Disposed¶13

Khandelwal Charitable Trust, Akola Thr Irs President- Mahesh Bansidhar Khandelwal and Other v. Mohanlal S/O Hiralal Khandelwal

Bombay HC12 Jan 2026CRA/34/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench; CRA 34 of 2025; Khandelwal Charitable Trust Akola vs Mohanlal Hiralal Khandelwal; Rohit W. Joshi J; 12 January 2026; Order VII Rule 11 CPC; rejection of plaint; Section 50 Maharashtra Public Trust Act; bar to suit; cause of action; revision withdrawn/disposed as withdrawn; liberty to file fresh Order VII Rule 11 application; points open at final hearing of suit; 2026:BHC-NAG:420.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Application disposed of as withdrawn; liberty to raise the points agitated in the revision at the final hearing of the suit on merits, and liberty to file a fresh application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC contending non-disclosure of cause of action, any such application to be decided in accordance with law. ¶13

Khandelwal Charitable Trust, Akola Thr Irs President- Mahesh Bansidhar Khandelwal and Other vs Mohanlal S/O Hiralal Khandelwal — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the Civil Revision Application should be permitted to be withdrawn, the Court having expressed disinclination, and on what terms (liberties to be preserved). +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

On the revision petitioners' motion to withdraw (made on instructions after the Court expressed disinclination), the Civil Revision Application is disposed of as withdrawn.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

Any fresh application for rejection of plaint if filed by the defendants/revision petitioners may be decided in accordance with the law (liberty granted notwithstanding the plaintiffs' opposition).

¶23

Key takeaways

Since the present revision arises out of an order passed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the points sought to be agitated in the revision can obviously be raised at the time of final hearing of the suit on merits.obiter¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), Rohit W. Joshi, J.; Civil Revision Application No. 34 of 2025, decided 12-01-2026 - Khandelwal Charitable Trust, Akola (through its President Mahesh Bansidhar Khandelwal) and others (defendants/revision petitioners) v. Mohanlal s/o Hiralal Khandelwal (plaintiff/respondent). The revision lay against an order passed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. After the Court expressed disinclination, the applicants' counsel moved to withdraw the revision; the Court disposed of it as withdrawn, observing that, as the revision arose from an Order VII Rule 11 order, the points sought to be agitated therein could obviously be raised at the final hearing of the suit on merits. Counsel clarified that the withdrawn application had been confined to the bar under Section 50 of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act; liberty was granted, despite the plaintiffs' opposition, to file a fresh Order VII Rule 11 CPC application additionally contending that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, any such application to be decided in accordance with law. No substantive ruling was made on the Section 50 bar or on disclosure of cause of action.

¶1

2026:BHC-NAG:420

¶2

44-CRA-126-2025.odt 1/2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR .

¶4

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 34 OF 2025

¶5

KHANDELWAL CHARITABLE TRUST, AKOLA THR. IRS PRESIDENTMAHESH BANSIDHAR KHANDELWAL AND OTHER

¶6

V s.

¶7

MOHANLAL S/O HIRALAL KHANDELWAL

¶8

Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram,__________________________________________________________________________ appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders.

¶9

Mr. Shyamsundar A. Mohta, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr. Monesh G. Sarda, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1.1.

¶10

CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATE : 12th JANUARY, 2026.

¶11

After hearing the matter after sometime, when this Court

¶12

had expressed disinclination, learned advocate for the revision petitioners on instructions from the revision petitioners makes a motion to withdraw the civil revision application.

¶13

Civil Revision Application is disposed of as withdrawn.

¶14

Needless to mention that since the present revision arises

¶15

out of an order passed under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, the points sought to be agitated can obviously be

¶16

raised at the time of final hearing of the suit on merits.

¶17

Learned advocate for the revision petitioners contends

¶18

that the present application was filed only with respect to bar

¶19

to filing of suit as contemplated under Section 50 of the

¶20

44-CRA-126-2025.odt 2/2

¶21

Maharashtra Public Trust Act and that apart from said ground, the plaint is also liable to be rejected as not disclosing cause of action. He seeks liberty to file fresh application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC on this ground.

¶22

Learned advocate for the respondents/plaintiffs opposes the request.

¶23

Any fresh application for rejection of plaint if filed by the defendants/revision petitioners, it may be decided in accordance with the law.

¶24

(ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.)

¶25

MJ Jadhav

Khandelwal Charitable Trust, Akola Thr Irs President- Mahesh Bansidhar Khandelwal and Other v. Mohanlal S/O Hiralal Khandelwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khandelwal Charitable Trust, Akola Thr Irs President- Mahesh Bansidhar Khandelwal and Other v. Mohanlal S/O Hiralal Khandelwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Central India Madhyawarti Bahuudeshiya Shakari Sanstha Ltd, Nagpur Thr. Secretary Rajeev Hadap vs Gramin Vikas Kukkut Palan Shakari Sanstha Ltd, Pachgaon, Nagpur Thr. Secretary Dr. Gulabrao Bhoyar

Ujwala Wd/O Pramod Wankhede and Another vs Ashok S/O Dinesh Mishra and Others

Ifra Sheikh, Trading as Rocket Bidi Works, Nagpur Thr. P.O.A Mohammad Yaqub S/O Ziamohammad Ishaque vs M/S Mobile Bidi Traders, Partnership Firm, Kamptee, Nagpur

Ayub Gani Ab. Sattar. vs the State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Washim and Other

Sau. Ruchita Durgesh Shriwas vs Durgesh Dilip Shriwas

Dr Rajendra Gopkisan Kalantri vs M/S Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited a Limited Company through its Sales Officer