Bombay High Court
Rupesh Bhaskar Wattamwar And Another vs Babanrao Narbaji More Alias Baba Naru … on 9 May, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:14249
(1) cra-28-2023.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.28 OF 2023
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2430 OF 2024
Ravi Bhaskar Wattamwar,
Age: 52 years, Occu: Business,
R/o. Mid and Hote, Gokul Nagar,
Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded. ..Applicant
Versus
1. BabanraoNarbaji More @ Baba s/o Naru More,
Age 62 years, Occu: Retired,
R/o Vasarni, At Present Ramrao Pawar Marg,
Shrinagar, Nanded. Tq. & District Nanded.
(Original Plaintiffs)
2. Sushant s/o Tuljaram Rathor
R/o Irwara Bazar, Nanded.
Tq. & District Nanded.
3. Sunil s/o Tuljaram Rathor Deceased, through LRS-
3/1. Sandhya w/o Sunil Rathor,
Age 45 years, Occu: Household.
3/2. Medha d/o Sunil Rathor,
Age 24 years, Occu: Household.
3/3. Swastik s/o Sunil Rathor,
Age 22 years, Occ: Business,
3/3. Suraj s/o Sunil Rathor,
Age 20 years, Occu: Busness,
All R/o Near Shrishitala (Pochhama)
Mata Mandir, Itwara, Nanded.
4. Hirasinha s/o Anantramsinha Chavan
Deceased, Through: LRs-
4/1. Dilipsinha s/o HirasinhaChavan,
Age 46 years, Occu: Business.
R/o CIDCO, Nanded.
(2) cra-28-2023.odt
4/2. Shilabai w/ RanjitsinhaChavan,
Age 43 years, Occu: Household,
R/o Chouphala, Nanded.
4/3. Gurusinha s/o Hirasinha Chavan,
Age 42 years, Occu: Business.
R/o Vazirabad, Nanded.
4/4. Bhagwansinha s/o Hirasinha Chavan,
Age 40 years, Occu: Business,
R/o Kautha, Tq. & Dist. Nanded.
5. Purbhaji Baba More, Deceased, Through LRS-
5/1. Gangadhar s/o Purbhaji More,
Age 70 years, Occu: Agri.
R/o Vasarni, Tq. &Dist.Nanded.
6. Ganesh s/o Purbhaji More, Deceased, Through LRS-
6/1. Shalanba Ganesh More,
Age 55 years, Occu: Household.
6/2 Gajanan S/o Ganesh More,
Age 40 years Occu: Agri.
6/3. Rama s/o Ganesh More,
Age 35 years, Occu: Agri.
All R/o Vasarni, Tq. & Dist. Nanded.
7. Balaji s/o Padurang More, Deceased, Through LRs-
7/1. Muktabai Balaji More,
Age 60 years, Occu: Household.
7/2. Dinesh s/o Balaji More,
Age 35 years Occu: Driver,
Both R/o Gokulnagar, Laxmi Niwas,
Bhokar, Tq. Bhokar, District Nanded.
8. Govid Pandurang More, Deceased, Through: LRS-
8/1. Rekhabai w/o Govind More,
Age 50 years, Occu: Household.
(3) cra-28-2023.odt
8/2. Dipak s/o Govind More,
Age 35 years, Occu: Mistari
R/o Vasarni. Dist. Nanded.
9. Suresh s/o Pandurang More, Deceased, Through LRS-
9/1. Mangalbai Suresh More,
Age 45 years, Occu: Household.
9/2. Vikas s/o Suresh More,
Age 25 years, Occu: Labour.
9/3. Akash s/o Suresh More,
Age 22 years, Occu: Labour,
R/o Vasarni, Dist.Nanded.
10. Shankar s/o Naru More (Deceased, LRs-
10/1. Lilavati w/o Shankar More,
Age 40 years, Occu: Labour.
10/2. Raju s/o Shankar More,
Age 40 years Occu: Labour.
10/3. Balu s/o Shankar More,
Age 36 years, Occu: Labour.
10/4. Ravi s/o Shankar More,
Age 34 years, Occu: Service,
All r/o Vasarni, Tq. & Dist. Nanded.
10/5/ Anusaya Sanjay Dashrathe,
Age 38 years Occu: Household,
R/o Vadsad, Tq.Pusad, Dist. Yeotmal.
11. Bhaskar s/o Maroti Wattamwar,
Deceased, Through: LRS-
11/1. Rupesh S/o Bhaskar Wattamwar,
Age Major, Occu: Business.
11/1. Rajesh s/o Bhaskar Wattamwar,
Age Major, Occu: Business,
All R/o Mid & Hotel, Gokulnagar,
Nanded.Dsit.Nanded.
(4) cra-28-2023.odt
12. Vithal s/o Mlappa Shetty,
Age 45 years, Occu: Hotel,
R/o Sangavi, Tq. &Dist. Nanded. ..Respondents
(Orig. Respondent Nos.1 to 11)
AND
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.29 OF 2023
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2429 OF 2024
1. Rupesh s/o Bhaskar Wattamwar
Age: 55 yrs., Occu: Business,
R/o. Mid & Hote, Gokul Nagar,
Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded.
2. Rajesh s/o Bhaskar Wattamwar
Age: 54 yrs., Occu: Business,
R/o. Mid & Hote, Gokul Nagar,
Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded. ..Applicants
(Ori. Respondent Nos.10/2 and 10/3)
Versus
1. BabanraoNarbaji More @ Baba s/o Naru More,
Age 62 years, Occu: Retired,
R/o Vasarni, At Present Ramrao Pawar Marg,
Shrinagar, Nanded. Tq. & District Nanded.
(Original Plaintiffs)
2. Sushant s/o Tuljaram Rathor
R/o Irwara Bazar, Nanded.
Tq. & District Nanded.
3. Sunil s/o Tuljaram Rathor Deceased, through LRS-
3/1. Sandhya w/o Sunil Rathor,
Age 45 years, Occu: Household.
3/2. Medha d/o Sunil Rathor,
Age 24 years, Occu: Household.
3/3. Swastik s/o Sunil Rathor,
Age 22 years, Occ: Business,
3/3. Suraj s/o Sunil Rathor,
Age 20 years, Occu: Busness,
(5) cra-28-2023.odt
All R/o Near Shrishitala (Pochhama)
Mata Mandir, Itwara, Nanded.
4. Hirasinha s/o Anantramsinha Chavan
Deceased, Through: LRs-
4/1. Dilipsinha s/o HirasinhaChavan,
Age 46 years, Occu: Business.
R/o CIDCO, Nanded.
4/2. Shilabai w/ RanjitsinhaChavan,
Age 43 years, Occu: Household,
R/o Chouphala, Nanded.
4/3. Gurusinha s/o Hirasinha Chavan,
Age 42 years, Occu: Business.
R/o Vazirabad, Nanded.
4/4. Bhagwansinha s/o Hirasinha Chavan,
Age 40 years, Occu: Business,
R/o Kautha, Tq. & Dist. Nanded.
5. Purbhaji Baba More, Deceased, Through LRS-
5/1. Gangadhar s/o Purbhaji More,
Age 70 years, Occu: Agri.
R/o Vasarni, Tq. &Dist.Nanded.
6. Ganesh s/o Purbhaji More, Deceased, Through LRS-
6/1. Shalanba Ganesh More,
Age 55 years, Occu: Household.
6/2 Gajanan S/o Ganesh More,
Age 40 years Occu: Agri.
6/3. Rama s/o Ganesh More,
Age 35 years, Occu: Agri.
All R/o Vasarni, Tq. & Dist. Nanded.
7. Balaji s/o Padurang More, Deceased, Through LRs-
7/1. Muktabai Balaji More,
Age 60 years, Occu: Household.
(6) cra-28-2023.odt
7/2. Dinesh s/o Balaji More,
Age 35 years Occu: Driver,
Both R/o Gokulnagar, Laxmi Niwas,
Bhokar, Tq. Bhokar, District Nanded.
8. Govid Pandurang More, Deceased, Through: LRS-
8/1. Rekhabai w/o Govind More,
Age 50 years, Occu: Household.
8/2. Dipak s/o Govind More,
Age 35 years, Occu: Mistari
R/o Vasarni. Dist. Nanded.
9. Suresh s/o Pandurang More, Deceased, Through LRS-
9/1. Mangalbai Suresh More,
Age 45 years, Occu: Household.
9/2. Vikas s/o Suresh More,
Age 25 years, Occu: Labour.
9/3. Akash s/o Suresh More,
Age 22 years, Occu: Labour,
R/o Vasarni, Dist.Nanded.
10. Shankar s/o Naru More (Deceased, LRs-
10/1. Lilavati w/o Shankar More,
Age 40 years, Occu: Labour.
10/2. Raju s/o Shankar More,
Age 40 years Occu: Labour.
10/3. Balu s/o Shankar More,
Age 36 years, Occu: Labour.
10/4. Ravi s/o Shankar More,
Age 34 years, Occu: Service,
All r/o Vasarni, Tq. & Dist. Nanded.
10/5/ Anusaya Sanjay Dashrathe,
Age 38 years Occu: Household,
R/o Vadsad, Tq.Pusad, Dist. Yeotmal.
11. Bhaskar s/o Maroti Wattamwar,
(7) cra-28-2023.odt
Deceased, Through: LRS-
11/1. Rupesh S/o Bhaskar Wattamwar,
Age Major, Occu: Business.
11/1. Rajesh s/o Bhaskar Wattamwar,
Age Major, Occu: Business,
All R/o Mid & Hotel, Gokulnagar,
Nanded.Dsit.Nanded.
12. Vithal s/o Mlappa Shetty,
Age 45 years, Occu: Hotel,
R/o Sangavi, Tq. &Dist. Nanded. ..Respondents
(Orig. Respondent Nos.1 to 11)
...
Mr. A. S. Bajaj, Advocate for Applicants.
Mr. P. R. Katneshwarkar, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. G. G.
Suryawanshi, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
...
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
DATED : 09th MAY, 2025.
JUDGMENT :
–
1. The applicants / original defendants impugns order dated
19.12.2022 passed on their Applications filed below Exhibits 68 and
55 respectively, seeking rejection of plaint in Regular Civil Suit
No.106 / 2022 pending before Civil Judge Junior Division at
Nanded. (Hereinafter, parties are referred to by their original
status for the sake of convenience and brevity).
2. The respondent / plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit
No.106/2022 before Civil Judge Junior Division, Nanded, seeking
relief of declaration of ownership to the extent of 1/3 rd share in land
Survey No.3 (Gut No.28), situated at village Rahimpur, Tq. and
Dist. Nanded. The plaintiff further seeks declaration that sale
(8) cra-28-2023.odt
deeds dated 09.06.1972 and 04.07.1975 are not binding on his
share and claims for decree of possession so also perpetual
injunction against defendant nos.10/1 to 10/3 and 11 from
alienating and creating third party interest in the suit property.
3. The plaintiff contends that Survey No.3 admeasuring 33
acres was owned by Gopalsinh Ramsinh Sayal to the extent of 16
acres 20 gunthas. The plaintiff’s father Naroba, uncles Purbha and
Pandurang were owners of remaining 16 acres 20 gunthas to the
extent of 5 acres 20 gunthas each. Gopalsinh had leased out his
land to plaintiff’s father i.e. Naroba. As such, Naroba was holding
22 acres area from Survey No.3. On 06.09.1967, Naroba expired.
However, on 14.06.1968, his brothers Pandurang and Purbha
joining hands with Revenue Officers, shown partition of suit land
amongst brothers and got mutated their names along with name of
plaintiff’s brother Sambha in the revenue record. Later on, they
executed sale deed dated 09.06.1972 of 4 acres land in favour of T.
Rajendra and sale deed dated 04.07.1975 of 12 acres 20 R land in
name of Bhaskar Wattamwar.
4. According to plaintiff, aforesaid transactions took place
during pendency of Special Civil Suit No.63/1971 (renumbered as
Regular Civil Suit No.988/2000) instituted by Tuljaram Rathor and
Hirasing Anantramsing, claiming ownership and possession over
suit property against present plaintiff, his brother Sambha and
(9) cra-28-2023.odt
uncles Purbha and Pandurang in respect of suit property. Since
plaintiff was minor at the time of institution of suit of the year
1971, he was shown as defendant no.5 under guardianship of his
stepmother namely Tanyabai. Ultimately, aforesaid suit was
compromised by Bhaskar Wattamwar (purchaser under sale deed
dated 04.07.1975) with Tuljaram and another. Eventually, said
suit came to be dismissed for want of prosecution. According to
plaintiff, after dismissal of aforesaid suit, he got cause of action to
file present suit seeking relief as claimed.
5. The defendant nos.10/1 to 10/3 caused appearances in suit
and filed respective applications seeking rejection of plaint under
Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, contending that suit
does not disclose cause of action. The reliefs claimed in suit are
hopelessly barred by law of limitation. The suit is inadequately
valued. The plaintiff has no right in suit property. The cause of
action as pleaded in suit is illusory and camouflage.
6. The Trial Court after considering rival contentions, rejected
applications observing that point of limitation is mixed question of
facts and law, plaintiff has appropriately pleaded cause of action
dated 13.12.2021 as dismissal of Regular Civil Suit No.988/2000
involving suit property. Similarly, valuation as made in suit is
correct.
(10) cra-28-2023.odt 7. Aggrieved defendants filed present Civil Revision
Applications assailing order of Trial Court.
8. Mr. Bajaj, learned Advocate appearing for applicants would
urge that Trial Court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested with him
under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure in accordance
with law. Mr. Bajaj would submit that plaintiff has instituted suit
assailing alienation of suit land made in the year 1972 and 1795
under registered sale deeds. The plaintiff had every knowledge of
sale deeds or transfer of lands hence suit instituted after 46 years
is hopelessly barred by limitation. Mr. Bajaj would submit that
cause of action for filing suit is fictitious, imaginary and
unconcerned with main relief claimed in suit. According to him,
pendency of Regular Civil Suit No.988/2000 or its dismissal in the
year 2021 is absolutely irrelevant and cannot constitute cause of
action to file present suit for reliefs claimed. According to Mr.
Bajaj, Trial Court has erroneously observed that question of
limitation is mixed question of law and facts, when careful reading
of plaint depicts that suit is manifestly barred by limitation. In
support of his contentions he relies upon series of supreme court
judgments right from T. Arivandandam delivered in 1977 till
Ramisetty Venkatanna delivered in the year 2022, wherein law on
the point of jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil
Procedure has been elaborated and explained.
(11) cra-28-2023.odt
9. Per contra, Mr. Katneshwarkar, learned Senior Advocate
appearing for respondent/plaintiff supports impugned order. He
would urge minor plaintiff was added as defendant no.5 in Regular
Civil Suit No.988/2000 under guardianship of his step mother. The
issue as to the ownership and possession of self same suit property
was subject matter of that suit. The plaintiff could not have
instituted independent suit raising his claim as to the title in wake
of pending litigation in respect of self-same properties. He would,
therefore, urge that dismissal of Regular Civil Suit No.988/2000
has been rightly pleaded as cause of action. According to Mr.
Katneshwarkar, Trial Court has rightly considered aforesaid
aspects and held that issue of limitation is mixed question of law
and facts in present case and can be decided only at the conclusion
of trial.
10. Having considered submissions advanced, two aspects are
posed for consideration before this Court. Firstly, whether on
careful reading of plaint, plaintiff has made out case depicting
right over suit property and has genuine cause of action for
institution of present suit. Secondly, whether suit seeking
declaration in respect of sale deeds executed in the years 1972 and
1975 is within limitation on the basis of averments made in plaint
in conjunction with documents relied upon.
(12) cra-28-2023.odt
11. Careful analysis of averments in plaint depicts that plaintiff
is claiming his title over suit property through his father Naroba.
Admitedly, Naroba expired on 06.09.1967. Thereafter, names of
plaintiff’s uncles namely Pandurang and Purbha and his brother
Sambha were mutated in Record of Rights vide Mutation Entry
No.48 dated 16.06.1968. In the year 1971 Tuljaram Rathor and
another instituted suit for recovery of possession of land Survey
No.3 to the extent of half portion i.e. 16 acres 20 gunthas known as
Pandikadcha-hissa against Pandurang, Purbha, Sambha,
Shankar (plaintiff himself) and his stepmother Tanyabai.
However, during pendency of that suit plaintiff’s uncles and his
brother Sambha executed sale deeds dated 09.06.1972 and
04.07.1975 in favour of T. Rajendra and Bhaskar Wattamwar
respectively and alienated 16 acres 20 gunthas land to those
purchasers.
12. In Special Civil Suit No.63/1971 (new Regular Civil Suit
No.988/2000) instituted by Tuljaram Rathor and another, minor
plaintiff was shown aged about 10 years under guardianship of his
stepmother Tanyabai. In present suit plaintiff shown his age as 62
years. Therefore, it can be safely gathered that plaintiff attained
majority in year 1978. If plaintiff was aggrieved by sale deeds of
1972 and 1975, it was open for him to set out his claim and seek
(13) cra-28-2023.odt
declaration that those sale deeds were not binding on his rights or
those are invalid.
13. Looking to the age of plaintiff, right to assail sale deeds on
the ground of infringement or exclusion of his right occurred to him
on attaining majority. Article Article 58 of the Limitation Act
prescribes period of three years seeking declaration from date
when right to sue accrues. Therefore, assuming that plaintiff
attained majority in the year 1978, suit could have been instituted
before 1981. Even assuming that Article 110 of Limitation Act
applies in present case as plaintiff was excluded from suit property
on the date of execution of sale deeds, limitation of 12 years is
provided to seek relief of partition. Therefore assuming period of 12
years from the date when plaintiff attained majority, suit ought to
have instituted before 1990. At this stage it is appropriate to refer
certain observations of this Court in case of Chhabubhai
Balkrishna Sutar and another Vs. Panchan Ladha Savala
and others1, which reads are as under:
“Thus, it is evident that the Suit has been filed for
cancellation of the Sale Deeds of 1947. This would
obviously mean that the Suit is barred by limitation. Both
the trial Court and the Appellate Court have correctly held
that the plaintiffs were not entitled for a declaration
cancelling the Sale Deeds of 1947. Faced with this
difficulty, the learned Advocate for the plaintiffs has
submitted, on instructions, that the plaintiffs do not desire
to press prayers (b), (b-1) and (d) at this stage and are
confining the reliefs claimed in the Suit only to prayers (a)
and (c). This means that the plaintiffs are today
1 2010 (5) Mh.L.J. 885.
(14) cra-28-2023.odt
seeking a declaration that they have a 1/3rd
undivided share in the suit property and that they
are entitled to partition and separate possession of
this 1/3rd undivided share.
17. Even assuming the Suit is confined only to the
aforesaid prayers, it would still be hit by limitation. Under
Article 110 of the Limitation Act, a person who is excluded
from a share in a joint family property must file a Suit
within 12 years from the exclusion. The witness for the
plaintiffs has deposed that the plaintiffs were ousted from
the suit property in 1954. Therefore, it was necessary for the
plaintiffs to file the Suit within 12 years from their ouster
from the suit property. Admittedly, this has not been done.
14. In present case plaintiff was well aware about alienation of
suit property by his brother Sambha, uncles Purba and Pandu
under registered sale deeds executed in year 1972-75 excluding his
right. Hence plaintiff could have filed suit for partition of joint
family property within period of 12 years prescribed under Art 110
of limitation Act. Plaintiff attained majority in year 1978 hence
assuming extension till extinguishing of disability, limitation to
raise challenge expired in year 1990. Present suit is filed in year
2022 would be barred by limitation.
15. The plaintiff contends that Regular Civil Suit No.988/2000
(old Special Civil Suit No.63/1971) pertaining to suit property was
pending, hence, he got cause of action to file present suit on its
dismissal vide order dated 13.12.2021. Apparently, as per
averments in plaint it is contention of plaintiff that Tuljaram
Rathor and another instituted suit for recovery of possession. They
(15) cra-28-2023.odt
were trying to set up their independent title over suit property.
However, during pendency of that suit, when suit property was
alienated by plaintiff’s uncles and brother under registered sale
deeds of 1972 and 1975 executed in favour of T. Rajendra and
Bhaskar Wattamwar respectively there was no impediment to
plaintiff to assert his own right claiming that those sale deeds are
invalid or not binding on his right. It is difficult to hold that
pendency of Tuljaram’s suit precluded plaintiff from asserting his
own right and infringement thereof and seek declaration to that
effect. The dismissal of suit instituted by Tuljaram in the year
2021 is absolutely irrelevant to constitute cause of action in favour
of plaintiff to seek declaration against infringement of his right on
account of execution of sale deeds of the years 1972 and 1975. It is
not case of plaintiff that he was not aware about sale deeds and
consequential transfer of rights in favour of T. Rajendra and
Bhaskar Wattamwar. Therefore, this court holds that cause of
action pleaded by plaintiff is illusory and product of clever drafting.
16. In case of T. Arivandandam Vs. T. V. Satyapal and
Another2, particularly in paragraph no.5, Supreme Court observed
as under:
“The learned Munsif must remember that if on a
meaningful-not formal-reading of the plaint it is
manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not
disclosing a clear right to sue, be should exercise his power
under Or. VII r. 1 1 C.P.C. taking care to see that the
2 (1977) 4 SCC 467.
(16) cra-28-2023.odt
ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clever,
drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it
in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party
searchingly under Order X C.P.C. An activist Judge is the
answer to irresponsible law suits.”
17. The aforesaid exposition of law clearly puts obligation on
Trial Court to record satisfaction as to right of plaintiff to sue and
also keep in mind that clever drafting may create illusory cause of
action which shall be searchingly examined and in appropriate
cases powers under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure
shall be exercised. In present case, impugned order suggests that
Trial Court failed to cautiously apply his mind to averments in
plaint to search genuineness of cause of action or its relevancy for
claim in suit and got trapped in camouflage.
18. So far as aspect of limitation is concerned, Trial Court
observed that this would be mixed question of law and facts and
cannot be considered at this stage. It is well settled that while
considering application under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil
Procedure, contents of plaint and documents appended thereto are
relevant and it is duty of the Court to find out clear right to sue
and limitation. If, on the basis of averments in plaint, it is
manifest that suit is barred by limitation, Court need not protract
decision on issue of limitation for trial. In present case, plaintiff is
claiming his right in the suit properties, which are alienated in
years 1972 and 1975. The plaintiff attained majority in the year
(17) cra-28-2023.odt
1978 and was aware about aforesaid transactions in exclusion of
his alleged right. In this background, plaintiff has no explanation
for 43 years delay to assail infringement of his right. In this case
none of the provision extending period of limitation can be resorted
by plaintiff. It is trite that, even in case of disability, extension of
three years from date of extinguishing disability is provided to
challenge action of infringement of right. However, such extension
of limitation of three years was also expired in present case long
back in the year 1981 and even for relief of partition 12 years
period of limitation expired in the year 1990.
19. In case of Raghwendra Sharan Singh Vs. Ram
Prasanna Singh and Others3, Supreme Court observed in
paragraph no.9 as under:
“Now, so far as the application on behalf of the original
plaintiff and even the observations made by the learned trial
Court as well as the High Court that the question with
respect to the limitation is a mixed question of law and
facts, which can be decided only after the parties lead the
evidence is concerned, as observed and held by this Court in
the cases of Sham Lal alias Kuldip (supra); N.V. Srinivas
Murthy (supra) as well as in the case of Ram Prakash
Gupta (supra), considering the averments in the plaint if it
is found that the suit is clearly barred by law of limitation,
the same can be rejected in exercise of powers under Order 7
Rule 11(d) of the CPC.”
20. Similarly, in case of Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyani
Bhanusali (Gajra) and Others 4, in paragraph no.23.3, Supreme
Court observed as under:
3 (2020) 16 SCC 601.
4 (2020) 7 SCC 366.
(18) cra-28-2023.odt
“The underlying object of Order VII Rule 11 (a) is that if in
a suit, no cause of action is disclosed, or the suit is barred
by limitation under Rule 11 (d), the Court would not
permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the
proceedings in the suit. In such a case, it would be
necessary to put an end to the sham litigation, so that
further judicial time is not wasted.”
21. The Supreme Court in case of Azhar Hussain V. Rajiv
Ghandhi5 observed in paragraph no.12 as under:
“12. …The whole purpose of conferment of such power is to
ensure that a litigation which is meaningless, and bound to
prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time of
the Court, and exercise the mind of the respondent. The
sword of Damocles need not be kept hanging over his head
unnecessarily without point or purpose. Even if an
ordinary civil litigation, the Court readily exercises the
power to reject a plaint, if it does not disclose any cause of
action.” 12.2 The power conferred on the court to terminate
a civil action is, however, a drastic one, and the conditions
enumerated in Order VII Rule 11 are required to be strictly
adhered to. ”
22. In light of aforesaid exposition of law, observations of Trial
Court that issue of limitation cannot be decided at preliminary
stage in application under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil
Procedure cannot be countenanced. In view of aforesaid facts and
circumstances, this Court holds that plaint is liable to be rejected
since it sans cause of action and barred by limitation. Hence,
following order:
ORDER
a. Civil Revision Applications are allowed.
5 AIR 1986 SC 1253.
(19) cra-28-2023.odt b. The impugned order dated 19.12.2022 passed below Exhibits
68 and 55 respectively in Regular Civil Suit No.106/2022 pending
before Civil Judge Junior Division at Nanded is quashed and set
aside.
c. The applications under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure filed below Exhibits 68 and 55 are allowed.
d. The plaint in Regular Civil Suit No.106/2022 stands rejected.
e. In view of disposal of Civil Revision Applications, pending
Civil Applications stand disposed of.
(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
Devendra/May-2025