Bombay High Court
Yugjeet S/O Gurudayal Singh Kande vs M/S. Selvel Publicity And Consultant ... on 14 August, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:7987
1/6 35-cra 7-25
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.7 OF 2025
Yugjeet Gurudayal Singh Kande, Aged
about 44 years, Occup. Nil, R/o Plot
No.5, Ring road, Pratap Nagar, Nagpur. Applicant
(Ori. Defendant
No.4)
-Versus-
1. M/s. Selvel Publicity and Consultant (Ori.Plaintiff)
Private Limited, A company
incorporated under Companies Act,
Having its registered office at 194,
Ravindra Annexe, 4th Floor, D.V.Road,
Mumbai, 400 020 through Mr.Jeevan
Prabhakar Jathanna (Ori.Plaintiff)
2. Gurudayal Keharsingh Kande (Dead)
3. Snehal Gurudayal Singh Kande,
Aged Major, Occupation Business.
4. Raunak Gurudayal Kande, Prop.Guru Non-applicants.
Sneha Associates, Aged Major, (Ori. Defendant
Occupation Business, Non-applicant Nos.2 Nos.1 to 3)
to 4 r/o Visnhu Priya, Plot NO.6, Ringroad,
Pratap Nagar, Nagpur.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adv.Shantikumar Shivshankar Sharma, for the Applicant.
Smt.R.S. Dewani counsel for non-applicant No.l.
S.S. Ghube counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM :MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.
Judgment reserved on : 16.07.2025
Judgment pronounced on : 14.08.2025
JUDGMENT:
-
1) Heard.
2) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. This Civil Revision
Kavita.
2/6 35-cra 7-25
Application is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel
appearing for the parties.
3) Being aggrieved by the order dated 23.10.2024, passed
below Exh.198, rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11
of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the applicant, for rejection
of plaint on the ground that the plaintiff does not disclose any
cause of action in favour of plaintiff and also that as the defendant
No.4 applicant herein is added as defendant in the year 2017, the
same is barred as per the law of limitation.
4) The non-applicant No.1 filed the suit for specific
performance of contract along with other reliefs bearing Special
Civil Suit No.1278 of 2011 on the basis of deed of conveyance
which was executed on 13.11.2009 between defendant Nos.1 and
2 and one Kekoo S. Nicholson, the original plaintiff No.2. The
original plaintiff No.2 died on 12.04.2023 and his name was
deleted. The suit has been filed for enforcement of alleged deed of
conveyance dated 13.11.2009 entered between original plaintiff
No.2. The plaint does not disclose any cause of action in favour of
the sole plaintiff i.e. plaintiff No.1 the Company. Therefore, the
suit after deleting the name of original plaintiff no.2 is not
Kavita.
3/6 35-cra 7-25
maintainable. The another ground to reject the plaint is that the
relief claimed as against the applicant is barred by limitation.
5) The brief facts of the present case are as under:-
That the suit for specific performance of contract is filed
by the plaintiff on the basis of deed of conveyance dated
13.11.2009, which is executed between the original defendant
Nos.1 and 2 with one Shri. Kekoo S. Nicholson. According to the
applicant there is no reference of present non-applicant No.1
except that his office address is mentioned at page no.3 of
conveyance deed as M/s Selvel Publicity and Consultant Private
Limited. Even in the deed of conveyance, nowhere it is mentioned
that the same has been executed for and on behalf of said M/s
Selvel Publicity and Consultant Private Limited. Even the
common seal of the company is not affixed on the said alleged
deed. According to the applicant, the deed was executed by Mr.
Kekoo S. Nicholson in his personal capacity. Even the said deed
has no reference to the alleged Memorandum of Understanding
dated 31.10.2009. Hence, once the name of original plaintiff
No.2 came to be deleted it is apparently clear that the present non-
applicant No.1 have no cause of action or locus to continue with
Kavita.
4/6 35-cra 7-25
the suit. Hence, prayed to set aside the order passed by the trial
Court rejecting the application filed by this applicant under Order
VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908.
6) The respondent appeared and has stated that the suit is
filed by the Company and the plaintiff No.2 on behalf of the
Company has signed the conveyance deed. On his death, the suit
cannot be abated as the Company is the plaintiff and on behalf of
Company the suit was filed. The trial Court has rightly considered
the role of plaintiff No.2. Hence, prayed to reject the application.
7) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties.
8) On perusal of Civil Suit No.1278 of 2011, it appears
that it is mentioned in para No.1 that the Company has filed the
suit and one Nitin Kshirsagar is the Manager and plaintiff No.1
had constituted him as attorney for the plaintiff No.2. He was
fully aware about the facts of the instant case and by Resolution
dated 25.08.2011, the Company has authorised him to institute
the suit, to sign and verify the plaint and therefore, it is signed and
verified by the power of attorney holder Nitin Kshirsagar. Plaintiff
no.2 was the promoter and director of the plaintiff No.1-
Kavita.
5/6 35-cra 7-25
Company. The role of plaintiff No.2 is clearly mentioned in the
civil suit. The suit is filed against the applicant-defendant No.4 .
On perusal of the suit it appears that the proceedings under
Negotiable Instruments Act were filed against the defendant No.3.
There is Memorandum of Understanding between the defendant
Nos.1 and 2 about selling of the property in lieu of the cheques
given by the defendant No.3 to plaintiff Company. As per
Memorandum of Understanding defendant Nos.1 and 2 agreed to
sale the suit property to the plaintiffs. The agreement between the
plaintiff No.2 and defendants is executed. It appears from the suit
that the plaintiff No.2 acted as its Director therefore, on his
demise, the suit cannot be said to have been abated. It is not
correct that the applicant No.1 has no locus standi to continue the
suit. The contract to purchase the suit property is not in his
individual capacity. As the proceedings under the Negotiable
Instruments Act in view of the contract between the plaintiff No.1
and defendant No.3 are resulted in favour of the plaintiff and
therefore, Memorandum of Understanding was executed. The
agreement of sale was also between plaintiff No.1-Company and
defendant Nos.1 and 2. Considering the transaction between
Kavita.
6/6 35-cra 7-25
Company and the defendant Nos.1 and 3 and as the suit discloses
on what capacity, the plaintiff No.2 entered in contract with the
defendants, the trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed
by the applicants. Hence, interference at the hands of this Court is
not required. Hence, the application is rejected.
9) Rule stands discharged.
10) Civil Revision Application stands disposed of.
(MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J)
Signed by: Kavita P Tayade
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 14/08/2025 15:08:18
Kavita.
