Mr Ranjam Bhausaheb Dombe vs Shri Mahesh Devidas Sathe
2021 Latest Caselaw 4429 Bom

                                                                          (5) CRAST-21054-19.doc

BDP-SPS

  Bharat
  D.
  Pandit
  Digitally signed
  by Bharat D.
                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
  Pandit
  Date:
  2021.03.12
  15:40:33 +0530




                               CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO.21054 OF 2019

                     Mr. Ranjan Bhausaheb Dombe                 ...Applicant.
                             V/s
                     Mr. Mahesh Devidas Sathe
                     and Others                                 ....Respondent(s)

                     Mr. Mahindra Patil a/w Mr. Pranav Bhoite i/b Sharad V. Kulkarni for
                     the Applicant.
                     Mr. A.R. Patil, Addl. G.P. for Respondent Nos. 2 to 8.
                     Mr. Surel Shah for Respondent No.1.


                                          CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

                                          DATE:     MARCH 10, 2021
                     P.C.:-

                     1]       In a suit for declaration, Applicant/Defendant invoked provisions

of Order 7 Rule 11(a) of the C.P.C., alleging that bundle of facts stated

in plaint does not disclose cause of action and as such plaint is liable to

be rejected. After considering resistance of Respondent No.1/Plaintiff,

vide order impugned passed below Exhibit-87 on 28/3/2019, learned

Trial Court rejected the prayer. As such, this Petition.

2] By inviting my attention to the pleadings in the Plaint,

particularly paragraphs 7, 8 and the contentions in the Application-

(5) CRAST-21054-19.doc

Exhibit-87 it is sought to be canvassed by the learned Counsel for the

Petitioner that even if what has been stated in the plaint is taken to be

true, it cannot be inferred that cause of action is disclosed. To

substantiate the aforesaid contention, Counsel for the Petitioner has

relied on certain developments pre-filing of the suit whereby Plaintiff

has collected certain documents which, according to the Petitioner,

demonstrate about knowledge of Respondent No.1/Plaintiff of the

development activity carried out by the Petitioner in the suit property.

According to him, there is material on record to prima facie

demonstrate that entire claim put-forth by the Respondent

No.1/Plaintiff is false and bogus. He has also relied upon the judgment

of Allahabad High Court in First Appeal No.447 of 2014 in the matter

of Smt. Rekha Mishra and Anr. vs. Shiv Prasad Srivastava and 2

others, so as to canvass that bundle of facts pleaded does not disclose

cause of action.

3] The learned Counsel for Respondent No.1/Plaintiff would

support the order impugned.

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

(5) CRAST-21054-19.doc

the pleadings in the Plaint, Application-Exhibit-87, reasons furnished

by the learned Trial Court in support of the order made as also the

aforesaid judgment of the Allahabad High Court on which reliance is

placed by the Counsel for the Petitioner.

5] Of course, Petitioner has come out with case in para 4 of the

Application-Exhibit-87 thereby demonstrating that claim put-forth by

the Respondent No.1/Plaintiff, at its face value, can be inferred to be

false and bogus. Such pleadings in Application-Exhibit-87 are in the

form of defence to be set up by the Petitioner to the suit claim. The

pleadings in the Plaint in the suit for declaration and injunction

apparently disclose bundle of facts which very much disclose the cause

of action and as such the bar, as has been sought to be canvassed

under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(a) cannot be inferred. As far

as aforesaid judgment of Allahabad High Court is concerned on which

reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, issue in the

said judgment is, whether suit simplicitor for injunction under Section

34 of Specific Relief Act without there being consequential relief

claimed could be maintainable. Findings as such recorded in the

aforesaid judgment will be of hardly any assistance for the issue

(5) CRAST-21054-19.doc

involved in the present Petition.

6] For the reasons stated above, the order impugned, in my

opinion, is just and proper. No case for interference made out.

Petition fails and same stands dismissed.

( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )