Disposed¶¶20

Niraj S/O Bhuran Rahangdale and Another v. Smt. Indirabai @ Fulanbai W/O Harichand Bawankar

Civil Revision Application (Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench) – rejection of plaint

Bombay HC5 Feb 2026CRA/98/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench; Civil Revision Application No.98 of 2025; Rohit W. Joshi J.; decided 24.03.2026; res judicata as a mixed question of law and facts; rejection of plaint application not disturbed; direction to frame preliminary issue on res judicata and decide at the earliest; examination of parties permissible under Order X of the CPC.

What did the court decide?

Trial Court directed to frame a preliminary issue on the aspect of res judicata and decide the same at the earliest; the order dated 08.07.2025 was not disturbed; liberty to examine the parties under Order X of the CPC. ¶¶20

Niraj S/O Bhuran Rahangdale and Another vs Smt. Indirabai @ Fulanbai W/O Harichand Bawankar — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the present suit is barred by res judicata, the applicants contending that the prayers for possession and perpetual injunction depend upon adjudication of ownership already concluded against the plaintiff in the earlier rounds of litigation. +1 more

¶¶14

Court's answer

Although the order passed by the learned Trial Court need not be disturbed, it is expedient that the learned Trial Court is directed to frame a preliminary issue on the aspect of res judicata and decide the same at the earliest.

¶¶18

Ratio / Principle

It is well settled that res judicata is a mixed question of law and facts.

¶¶16

Key takeaways

Perusal of the plaint shows that the fact of filing of the earlier suit is specifically pleaded therein and in that sense filing of the earlier suit is not a fact in dispute.ratio¶¶16
The judgments delivered in the earlier round of litigation are a matter of record which can be duly established by placing certified copies thereof on record.ratio¶¶17
The learned Trial Court may take recourse to Order X of the CPC to examine the parties before deciding the preliminary issue, if it so deems fit.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Application (Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench) — rejection of plaint — res judicata. The applicants' application (Exhibit-13) for rejection of plaint in Regular Civil Suit No.308 of 2023 had been rejected by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gondia on 08.07.2025. The applicants contended that the suit was barred by res judicata since the plaintiff's earlier suit (Regular Civil Suit No.50 of 2005), which ended in dismissal confirmed in Regular Civil Appeal No.151 of 2013 and Second Appeal No.59 of 2019 (judgment dated 05.07.2019), had conclusively held that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property. Holding that res judicata is a mixed question of law and facts, but noting that the fact of filing of the earlier suit is specifically pleaded in the plaint and that the judgments of the earlier round are matters of record provable by certified copies, the Court declined to disturb the trial court's order and instead directed it to frame a preliminary issue on res judicata and decide it at the earliest, with liberty to examine the parties under Order X of the CPC. Civil Revision Application disposed of accordingly.

¶1

¶2

24..odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.98 OF 2025

¶5

Niraj B. Rahangdale and anr. Vs. Indirabai @ Fulanbai H. Bawankar

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order

¶7

Mr. I. N. Choudhari, Advocate for applicants. Mr. A. M. Chandekar, Advocate for non-applicant/respondent.

¶8

CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATE : 24.03.2026.

¶9

. The present revision arises out of order dated 08.07.2025 passed by the learned 2^nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gondia rejecting application for rejection of plaint filed by the present applicants vide Exhibit-13 in Regular Civil Suit No.308 of 2023.

¶10

The contention of the learned advocate for the applicants/defendants is that the plaintiff had filed an earlier civil suit being Regular Civil Suit No.50 of 2005 against one Rajesh, who is vendor of the defendant, the defendant and his brother Nitin with respect to the suit property claiming declaration of ownership and a decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants in the said suit from disturbing his possession over the suit property.

¶11

The learned advocate states that the said civil suit was dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 30.10.2013, which was confirmed vide judgment and decree dated 29.06.2017 passed in

¶12

2 24..odt

¶13

Regular Civil Appeal No.151 of 2013 and finally vide judgment dated 05.07.2019 passed by this Court in Second Appeal No.59 of 2019. The learned advocate contends that the judgment passed by this Court is not challenged further and as such the adjudication of the lis holding that plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property has attained finality between the parties.

¶14

He further contends that the prayer for possession, as also, for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from making construction over the suit property is a prayer which depends upon adjudication of ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property. He further contends that since it is already declared that plaintiff is not owner of the suit property, he does not have right to seek relief of perpetual injunction and possession sought in the suit. In sum and substance the contention is that the suit is barred by res judicata.

¶15

Learned advocate for the plaintiff/respondent contends that res judicata is a mixed question of law and facts and, therefore, plaint cannot be rejected on the said ground.

¶16

It is well settled that res judicata is a mixed question of law and facts. However, perusal of the plaint will indicate that the fact of filing of earlier suit is specifically pleaded in the plaint and in that sense filing of the earlier suit is not a fact in dispute. The judgments delivered in the earlier round of litigation are also a

¶17

matter of record, which can be duly established by placing certified copies thereof on record.

¶18

In view of the aforesaid, in the considered opinion of this Court, although the order passed by the learned Trial Court need not be disturbed, it will be expedient that the learned Trial Court is directed to frame a preliminary issue on the aspect of res judicata and decide the same at the earliest.

¶19

The learned Trial Court may take recourse to Order X of the CPC in order to examine the parties before deciding the preliminary issue if it so deems fit.

¶20

Civil Revision Application is disposed of accordingly by directing the learned Trial Court to decide the issue of res judicata by framing a preliminary issue.

¶21

(ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.)

¶22

Tαɳɱαყ...

Niraj S/O Bhuran Rahangdale and Another v. Smt. Indirabai @ Fulanbai W/O Harichand Bawankar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niraj S/O Bhuran Rahangdale and Another v. Smt. Indirabai @ Fulanbai W/O Harichand Bawankar

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

Jyotsana Prakash Wagh vs Shri Nilesh Arun Jadhav

M/S Lokesh Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd, Nagpur Thr. Authorized Representative, Nipul Ashokkumar Jain vs W.C.L., Nagpur Thr. Its Chairman Cum Managing Director and Others

Durgabai Uttamrao Thorat vs Laxminarayan Sansthan Achalpur through Its President Ratanlal Bhuramal Tambi and others

Ravindra Keshvrao Ingolkar (Dead) Thr. Lrs. and Others vs Dnyaneshwar Nanaji Ingolkar and Another

Sandeep Babasaheb Bodade vs Dr. Arunkumar Narayanrao Deshmukh

Shri. Sagar S/O Narendra Gandhi and Another vs Smt. Manisha W/O Vijay Pandey and Others