1 J-CRA-ST-13728-17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (CRA) ST.NO.13728/2017
Mr.Bhuvan s/o Balraj Kumar,
Aged about : 30 years,
Occ : Business, R/o Block No.1,
K.A.P.S. Residency,
Fago Layout, Gittikihadan,
Gorewada Road, Nagpur-440013. ..... PETITIONER
(ORI.DEFENDANT)
...V E R S U S...
Vijay s/o Rudaji @ Sadaji Kawle,
Aged about : 42 years,
Occ : Business, R/o Dwivedi Colony,
Residential Diary Compound,
Borgaon Road, Gittikhadan,
Nagpur - 440013. ... RESPONDENT
(ORI.PLAINTIFF)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri B. B. Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri A. P. Fuley, Advocate for the respondent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:-
ARUN D. UPADHYE, J.
DATED :
07/12/2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER ARUN D. UPADHYE, J.)
1. By this application, the applicant prays to quash and set aside the order dated 10/02/2017 below Exh.12 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur in RCS No.1448/2015.
2. I have heard both the sides at length. Shri B.B.Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri A.P.Fuley, learned counsel for the respondent.
::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2017 01:47:41 :::
2 J-CRA-ST-13728-17.odt
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant has submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiff itself is not maintainable. The application filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 (a), (b) and (d) of the C.P.C. was partly allowed and directed the plaintiff to make valuation of the suit afresh, on the basis of market valuation, however, the claim of maintainability of the suit was refused. He also submitted that the suit is not maintainable, as per the provisions of Section 8-A (1) of The Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. He, therefore, submitted that the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C., therefore, be allowed by setting aside the impugned order passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur.
4. Shri Fuley, learned counsel for the respondent, however, submitted that the Trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order. Therefore, the Civil Revision Application be dismissed.
5. Considering the submission of respective sides and on going through the impugned order and the documents placed on record, it appears that the learned Trial Court has rightly turned down the claim of the defendant on the point of tenability of the suit and observed that the plaint cannot be straightway rejected only on the ground of procedural aspect and without giving an opportunity to the ::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2017 01:47:41 ::: 3 J-CRA-ST-13728-17.odt plaintiff to make correction in the same. Therefore, the plaintiff was directed to make valuation of the suit afresh, on the basis of market valuation. As regards the tenability is concerned, the averments made in the plaint would disclose that he has claimed the relief of ownership on the basis of Gift allegedly made by the father of defendant long back. If that is so, the defendant may contest the suit by filing the suit in the matter and therefore, the plaint cannot be rejected, as claimed by the defendant.
6. No interference of this Court is called for in the impugned order.
7. The C.R.A. St.No.13728/2017 is devoid of any merit and accordingly rejected.
JUDGE Choulwar ::: Uploaded on - 08/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2017 01:47:41 :::