Arun Achyutrao Bhave vs Sarita Ashok Bhave And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 3883 Bom

                                                                               (9) wp-8759-2019.doc

BDP-SPS


   Bharat
   D.
   Pandit                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
   Digitally signed
   by Bharat D.
   Pandit
   Date:
   2021.03.04
   10:37:11 +0530




                                         WRIT PETITION NO.8759 OF 2019

                      Arun Achyutrao Bhave                         .... Petitioner.
                            V/s
                      Sarita Ashok Bhave & Anr.                    .... Respondents.

                      Mr. Murlidhar L. Patil for the Petitioner.
                      Mr. Raju M. Yamgar for the Respondent.

                                          CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

                                           DATE:        MARCH 2, 2021
                      P.C.:-


                      1]       In a suit for preemption, Petitioner moved an application under

Order 7 Rule 11(d) claiming that the suit is time barred under Rule

11(a) of Order 7. The said application came to be rejected by the

order impugned dated 22/10/2018. As such this Petition.

2] Submissions are, after compromise decree in Regular Civil

Appeal No.204 of 2005, Petitioner/Defendant gave an offer to the

Respondents/Plaintiffs to purchase the property. However,

Respondents/Plaintiffs have not exercised their option and have

chosen to file Special Civil Suit No.119 of 2017. According to the

learned counsel for the Petitioner, perusal of the suit does not disclose

(9) wp-8759-2019.doc

any cause of action so also suit is not maintainable under Rule 11(d)

of Order 7 of the CPC. Support is drawn from the Judgment of Delhi

High Court in the matter of Lachhman Das and others vs. Hakim Sita

Ram and others reported in 1975 SCC OnLine Del 52 particularly para

11, so as to claim that the agreement which allegedly gives right in

favour of he Respondents/Plaintiffs of preemption is against the public

policy and as such cannot be acted upon.

3] The learned Counsel for the Respondents/Plaintiffs supports the

order impugned.

4] With the assistance of learned Counsels, I have perused the

entire Plaint of the Regular Civil Suit No.119 of 2017. Bundle of facts,

as are pleaded in the plaint coupled with cause of action in para 7,

sufficiently disclose cause of action in favour of the

Respondents/Plaintiffs. Apart from above, it cannot be inferred from

the record as to under which provisions of law suit claim is barred by

limitation.

5] The judgment of Delhi High Court in the matter of Lachhman

(9) wp-8759-2019.doc

Das cited supra has no relevance to the issue sought to be raised in this

Petition and as such same cannot be relied on.

6] In the aforesaid backdrop, view expressed by the Trial Court is in

tune with the legal provisions. No interference is called for. Petition

fails and same stands dismissed.

( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )