Kishan Annadev Joshi And Others vs Manorama Govindrao Joshi And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 875 Bom

                                                                  59_WP1204515.odt


         
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        WRIT PETITION NO. 12045 OF 2015

1.  Kishan Annadev Joshi
     Age: 67 years, Occu.: Agri.,
     R/o Rampuri (Bk.), Tq. Manwath,
     Dist. Parbhani.

2.  Keshav Annadev Joshi
     Age: 62 years, Occu.: Service,
     R/o Mali Galli, Parbhani,
     Tq. & Dist. Parbhani.

3.  Sindhu Madhavrao Wadgaonkar
     Age: 59 years, Occu.: Household,
     R/o At Post Mangarul, Tq. Manwath,
     Dist. Parbhani.

4.  Suman Devidasrao Kulkarni
     Age: 55 years, Occu.: Household,
     R/o Shivaji Chowk, Cidco, Nanded.

5.  Shobha Milind Deshpande
     Age: 51 years, Occu.: Household,
     R/o Anand Nagar, Karegaon Road,
     Parbhani.

6.  Vimal Ashokrao Vaidya
     Age: 49 years, Occu.: Household,
     R/o As above.

7.  Sow Sakhubai Prabhakarrao Joshi
     Age: 64 years, Occu.: Household,
     R/o Ravrajur, Tq. Gangakhed,
     Dist. Parbhani.                                    ..PETITIONERS

               VERSUS


                                      1   /  3




       ::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017              ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2017 01:03:04 :::
                                                                          59_WP1204515.odt


1.  Sow. Manorama Govindrao Joshi
     Age: 62 years, Occu.: Household,
     R/o Balaji Lane, Manwath,
     Tq. Manwath, Dist. Parbhani.

2.  Gayabai Dattopanth Shastri
     Age: 72 years, Occu.: Household,
     R/o Manglmurti Nagar, Parbhani,
     Tq. & Dist. Parbhani.                                     ..RESPONDENTS

                                     ....
Mr. P.N. Kalani, Advocate for petitioners.
Mr. A.S. Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
                                     ....

                                                  CORAM :  S.B. SHUKRE, J.

DATED : 20th MARCH, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent of the contesting parties.

2. In an application filed for rejection of claim under Order 7 Rule

11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, what is relevant is only the averments

made in the plaint and not the submission made elsewhere. The

averments made in the plaint do not show that the suit is barred by law.

Therefore, the impugned order cannot be said to be perverse. There is no

merit in the said writ petition and it deserves to be dismissed with costs.

2 / 3

59_WP1204515.odt

3. Writ petition stands dismissed with costs. Rule is discharged.

However, liberty is given to the petitioners to file fresh application for

framing of preliminary issue and if it is filed, same shall be considered in

accordance with law.

( S.B. SHUKRE, J. ) SSD

3 / 3