Bombay High Court
Prashant Bhagwandasji Bajoriya And ... vs Smt. Bharti Bharat Bajoriya And Others on 12 August, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:7961
1/8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.49 OF 2025
1. Prashant Bhagwandasji Bajoriya, (Deft.No.1)
Aged about 49 years, Occup.Business,
R/o in front of Office of District
Collector, Civil Lines, Yavatmal, Tq.
And District Yavatmal.
2. Smt. Sushilabai Bhagwandasji Bajoriya, (Ori.Deft No.2)
Aged about 73 years, Occup.Household,
R/o in front of Office of District
Collector, Civil Lines, Yavatmal, Tq.
And District Yavatmal. Applicants.
-Versus-
1. Bharati Bharat Bajoriya, (Ori. Plaintiff No.1)
Aged about 48 years, Occ. Business.
2. Chetan Bharat Bajoriya, (Ori. Plaintiff No.2)
Aged about 25 years, Occup. Education,
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 R/o Bajoriya
Plaza, L.I.C.Chowk, Yavatmal, Taluka and
District Yavatmal.
3. Sau.Rita Ashok Vaid, (Ori. Defendant
Aged about 52 years, Occupation: No.3)
Household, R/o 1203 B, Lokhandwala
Residency Tower, Dr.E.Mojes Road,
Worli, Mumbai-440 018.
4. Sau.Meena Jitendra Khetan, Aged 50 (Ori. Defendant
years, Occup. Household, R/o B-10, Vikas No.4)
Ramchandra Galli, Malhad (West),
Mumbai-400096.
5. Pravin Vijay Rathod, (Ori. Defendant
Aged about 64 years, Occup. Agriculturist, No.5)
R/o Mandvi, Tq. Kinwad District:Nanded.
6. Sau.Kalpana Parashram Aade, (Ori. Defendant
Aged about 62 years, No.6)
Occupation:Household, R/o Darda Nagar,
Yavatmal, Taluka and District Yavatmal.
7. Sun and Sand Real Estate (Ori. Defendant
Developers,Yavatmal Through Partner. No.7)
Kavita.
2/8
A Shashank Chandrashekhar Deshmukh,
Aged about 46 years,
Occupation:Agriculturist, R/o Mack
Motors, Arni Road, Yavatmal.
B Nikhil Sureshrao Jiraprue, Aged about 38
years, Occup.Agriculturist and Business,
R/o Dahiwalkar Plot Yavatmal.
C. Nilesh Vijayrao Ghume, Aged about 46
years, Occupation:Agriculturist and
Business, R/o Pushpakunj Society,
Yavatmal.
D. Avinash Shivdasrao Lokhande, Aged about
37 years, Occup.Agriculturist, R/o Parvati
Nagar, Yavatmal.
E Pragati Rajesh Bhagat, Aged about 40
years, Occup. Agriculturist and Business,
R/o Sidhivinayak Sankul, Arni Road,
Yavatmal. Non-applicants.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.A.C.Dharmadhikari, Adv.for the applicants.
Mr.S.S.Sohoni, Adv. for non-applicant Nos.1 and 2.
Mr.A.B.Nakshane, counsel for non applicant No.6.
Mr.M.I.Dhatrak counsel for respondent Nos.7-A to 7-E.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM :MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.
Judgment reserved on : 14.07.2025
Judgment pronounced on : 12.08.2025
JUDGMENT:
-
1) Heard.
2) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. This Civil Revision
Application is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel
appearing for the parties.
Kavita.
3) By the present Civil Revision Application, the
applicants/original defendant Nos.1 and 2 have challenged the legality
and correctness of the order dated 20.05.2025, passed by the Civil
Judge Senior Division, Yavatmal in Special Civil Suit No.21 of 2017.
The applicants have filed the application under Order VII Rule 11 (a)
and (d) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure
Code,1908 stating that the suit is barred by law. The Trial Court has
rejected the said application. Hence, the applicants have filed this
Civil Revision Application.
4) The plaintiffs i.e. non-applicant Nos.1 and 2 have filed the
Civil Suit for partition mentioning the properties mentioned in civil
suit as ancestral properties. It is the contention of the applicants that in
the said Civil Suit, the plaintiffs are claiming in some of the
properties, 1/3rd share and in the property at Sr.Nos. vi,vii,viii and ix,
the plaintiffs are claiming 1/5th share.
5) It is the submission of the applicants that the suit is
barred by law. The property mentioned under Sr.No.6 is already
given to the applicant No.1 by registered gift deed dated
23/01/2001. The said gift deed was in the knowledge of the
original plaintiffs and they have never challenged it. The
defendant No.1 had disclosed the said gift deed in the proceedings
Kavita.
filed by the original plaintiffs in Appeal No.NAP 34/2007/2017
filed on 16.03.2017 before Collector, Yavatmal for review of the
sanction granted to the layout prepared by the defendant No.1 in
respect of survey No. 52/2012. The said gift deed has attained the
finality and it cannot be questioned now at this stage without
challenging the same. The plaintiffs have deliberately not disclosed
this fact and sought relief that the sale deed dated 17.04.2017 is
not binding on them. The properties mentioned at Serial Nos. vii,
viii and ix, are the fixed deposits and the amount in PPF account
and shares. The said properties were given to the applicant No.1
by registered will deed dated 21.06.2012. Said will deed is not
questioned by anybody or any of the plaintiffs. The applicants
have stated that the plaintiffs have approached the Trial Court not
with clean hands and suppressed the material documents from the
Court while filing the suit for partition in respect of the properties,
which are described. It is barred by law. Hence, prayed to set aside
the order passed by the Trial Court on the application filed by the
applicants.
6) The learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant
Nos.1 and 2 has stated that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of
Kavita.
Bhagwandasji Bajoriya. The father-in-law of plaintiff no.1 and
grandfather of plaintiff No.2. The properties mentioned in the
plaint are ancestral properties and the defendants are the legal
heirs of Bhagwandasji Bajoriya. The plaintiffs have claimed their
share in the ancestral properties. A number of properties are there
and the plaintiffs are not considered as legal heirs of Bhagwandasji
Bajoriya. After the death of the husband of plaintiff No.1 and
father of plaintiff No.2, without including the plaintiffs as legal
heirs, in proceeding for grant of legal heirs certificate the
properties were alienated to 3rd person, therefore, the plaintiffs
have filed this suit for partition and possession. There is no
suppression of material facts in the said suit hence, the trial court
has rightly rejected the application filed by the applicant.
7) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties.
8) On perusal of the plaint, it appears that the suit is filed
for partition of ancestral properties against the legal heirs of one
Bhagwandasji Bajoriya by plaintiffs, who are also the legal
representatives of said person being wife and son of Bharat
Bajoriya. The plaintiffs are not considered as legal heirs while
Kavita.
deleting the name of Bharat Bajoriya from MJC No.62 of 2008.
The plaintiffs were not knowing about it. The applicants have
relied on the judgment in the case of Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and
others .v/s. Assistant Charity Commissioner and others , reported
in, (2004) 3 SCC 137 wherein it is held in para 12 as follows:
"The trial court must remember that if on a
meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint it is
manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not
disclosing a clear right to sue, it should exercise the
power under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code taking
care to see that the ground mentioned therein is
fulfilled. If clever drafting has created the illusion of
a cause of action, it has to be nipped in the bud at the
first hearing by examining the party searchingly
under Order 10 of the Code. (see T. Arivandandam
vs. T. V. Satyapal)"
9) It is the contention of the applicants that the plaintiffs
have suppressed the facts. They were knowing about the gift deed
and will deed and earlier litigations are also not disclosed by the
plaintiff.
10) The applicants further placed reliance on the judgment in
the case of the Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational
Charitable Society .v/s. Ponniamman Educational Trust (Civil
Appeal No. 4841 of 2012, decided on 03.07.2012) wherein it is
Kavita.
held in para 7 as follows:-
"It is also useful to refer the judgment in T.
Arivandandam v. T. V. Satyapal and Anr.
MANU/SC/0034/1977 : (1977) 4 SCC 467,
wherein while considering the very same provision ,
i.e. order VII Rule 11 and the duty of the trial Court
in considering such application, this Court has
reminded the trial Judges with the following
observation:
"5. ..... The learned Munsif must remember that if on
a meaningful - for formal - reading of the plaint it is
manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of
not disclosing clear right to sue, he should exercise
his power under Order VII, Rule 11 of Code of Civil
Procedure taking care to see that the ground
mentioned therein is fulfilled and if clever drafting
has created the illusion of a cause of action nip it in
the bud at the first hearing by examining the party
searchingly under Order X, Code of Civil Procedure.
An Activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law
suits. The trial Courts would insist imperatively on
examining the party at the first hearing so that bogus
litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage. The
Penal Code is also resourceful enough to meet such
men, (Cr.XI) and must be triggered against them...
It is clear that if the allegations are vexatious and
meritless and not disclosing a clear right or material
(s) to sue, it is the duty of the trial Judge to exercise
his power under Order VII Rule 11. If clever
drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action
as observed by Krishna Iyer J., in the above referred
decision, it should be nipped in the bud at the first
hearing by examining the parties under Order X of
the Code."
11) Keeping in mind the above said observations, I have
Kavita.
gone through the plaint. On perusal of the plaint, it appears that
the plaintiffs have not suppressed the litigations between the
plaintiffs and defendants. Whether the plaintiffs were aware about
the gift deed and the will deed is the question of trial. After
considering the evidence on record, it will be considered whether
there is any suppression of material fact. At this stage, only on the
submission made by the applicants that the plaintiffs were having
knowledge of said gift deed and will deed and they have no any
share in the said properties cannot be considered. The suit is for
partition there is no any suppression of material fact. Hence, the
interference at the hands of this Court is not required.
12) The Civil Revision Application is rejected.
13) Rule stands discharged.
14) Civil Revision Application stands disposed of.
(MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J)
Signed by: Kavita P Tayade
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 13/08/2025 18:32:11
Kavita.
