Vishnu S/O Rajaram Nayse vs Rukhmabai W/O Bhagwan Nayse And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 493 Bom

                                                                     cra35.16


                                      1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
                Civil Revision Application No. 35 of 2016

 Vishnu son of Rajaram Nayse,
 aged 56 years,
 resident of Pimpri Adgaon,
 Tq. Sangrampur,
 Distt. Buldana.                              .....        Applicant
                                                    [Org. Deft. No.4]

                                    Versus


 1.     Rukhmabai wife of Bhagwan
        Nayse,
        aged about 80 years,
        occupation - Household,

 2.     Laxman son of Bhagwan Nayse,
        aged 58 years,
        occupation - Agriculturist,

        both residents of Pimpri,
        Tq. Sangrampur,
        Distt. Buldana.

        .....Org. Plaintiffs.


 3.     State of Maharashtra,
        through Collector,
        Buldana.

 4.     Deputy Director of Land Records,




::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2017                 ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2017 00:54:41 :::
                                                                            cra35.16


                                         2



        Amravati, Tq. & Distt.
        Amravati.

 5.     Taluka Inspector of Land
        Records,
        Sangrampur,
        Tq. Sangrampur,
        Distt. Buldana.                             ..... Non-applicants.
                                                       [Org. Defts. 1 to 3]


                                 *****
 Mr. A.V. Bhide, Adv., for the Applicant.

 Mrs. S.P. Giratkar, Adv. [appointed] for respondent nos. 1 and 2.

 Mrs. M. Naik, Asstt. Govt. Pleader, for respondent nos. 3 to 5.

                                       *****


                                  CORAM :          A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.

                                  Date         :   06th March, 2017




 ORAL JUDGMENT :


 01.            In view of notice for final disposal issued earlier, the learned

 counsel for the parties are heard at length.



 02.            The applicant, who is defendant no.4 in Regular Civil Suit

 No. 189 of 2014, is aggrieved by order passed by the trial Court below




::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2017                       ::: Downloaded on - 09/03/2017 00:54:41 :::
                                                                          cra35.16


                                        3



 Exhs.9 and 13, whereby the applications moved under provisions of

 Order-VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 have been

 dismissed.



 03.            According to Shri A.V. Bhide, learned counsel for the

 applicant, Prayer Clause [अ] in the plaint cannot be entertained by

 the Civil Court in view of provisions of Section 158 of the Maharashtra

 Land Revenue Code, 1966. He submits that as per said prayer, it is

 prayed that Mutation Entry No. 838 be duly corrected.



 04.            Mrs. S. P. Giratkar, learned counsel for Non-applicant nos. 1

 and 2, on instructions submits that the plaintiffs do not intend to

 prosecute Prayer Clause [अ] in the plaint and that she is instructed to

 make a statement that said prayer clause can be deleted.                       It is

 submitted that the other relief sought in the plaint is with regard to

 grant of possession of encroached portion of land.



 05.            Considering the statement made on behalf of the plaintiffs,

 the following order is passed:-



                                   ORDER

cra35.16

[a] The plaintiffs shall delete Prayer Clause [अ] from the plaint in Regular Civil Suit No. 189 of 2014. They shall also amend the cause title of the suit to bring it in tune with the relief sought by them. Said amendment shall be carried out before trial Court within a period of three weeks from today. Thereafter, the trial Court shall proceed with the aforesaid suit in accordance with law.

[b] The question as to bar of limitation is kept open and trial Court shall consider the same on its own merits.

06. The Civil Revision Application is partly allowed in aforesaid

terms. No costs.

Judge

-0-0-0-0-

|hedau|