State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... vs Nathu Chotelal Yadav And Others
2017 Latest Caselaw 3117 Bom

        J-cra28.17.odt                                                                                                1/3       


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


                        CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No.28 OF 2017


        1.    State of Maharashtra,
               Through the Secretary,
               Revenue Department, 
               Manatralaya,  Mumbai.

        2.    The Collector,
               Revenue Department,
               Civil Lines, Nagpur.

        3.    The Tahsildar (Nagpur City),
               Aakashwant Square, Near Collector
               Compound, Civil Lines, Nagpur.

        4.    Mr. Anup Kumar,
               Aged - Major,
               then Additional Commissioner,
               Nagpur.                                                               :      PETITIONERS

                           ...VERSUS...

        1.    Nathu Chotelal Yadav,
               Aged about 62 years,
               Occupation : Business.

        2.    Rakesh s/o. Nathu Yadav,
               Aged about 38 years,
               Occupation : Business.

        3.    Ramesh s/o. Dhansingh Baniya,
               Age - Major, 
               Occupation : Business.

        4.    Milind Manikrao Sable,
               Age _ Major, Occupation Business,
              The Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are 
              R/o. Kh. No.11, mouza Pandharabodi,
              Nagpur.




::: Uploaded on - 16/06/2017                                               ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2017 00:43:44 :::
         J-cra28.17.odt                                                                                                2/3       




        5.    Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj
               Nagpur University, through the
               Registrar, Rabindranath Tagore Marg,
               Nagpur.                                                                :      RESPONDENTS


        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
        Ms. T.H. Khan, Advocate for the  Petitioners.
        Shri V.V. Bhangde, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4,
        Shri P.N. Upadhyay, Advocate for the Respondent No.5.
        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


                                                       CORAM  :   S.B. SHUKRE, J.

th DATE : 13 JUNE, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. Heard finally by consent.

4. On perusal of the impugned order, I do not think that there is

any reason for this Court to make interference with it. Ultimately, the

application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure

has to be decided only on the basis of the averments in the plaint and if

the averments in the plaint do not disclose that the plaint is barred by

law or disclose cause of action, the plaint is not liable to be rejected. In

the instant case, the plaintiff i.e. the respondent has been contending all

the while that he is the owner of the subject property, although it is the

contention of the learned A.G.P. that he is a rank trespasser. Such a

J-cra28.17.odt 3/3

contention would have to be decided on the basis of the evidence

brought before the Court and can never be adjudicated by mere

reference to the pleadings in the plaint.

5. In these circumstances, the impugned order cannot be seen

to be perverse or arbitrary or standing contrary to the settled principles

of law. There is no merit in this applicant and it is liable to be rejected.

6. Civil revision application stands rejected. No costs.

JUDGE

okMksns