[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Suryakant Chunnilal Jaipuria And ... vs Vaibhav S/O Suryakant Jaipuria on 11 May, 2026
1 25.cra.64.2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.64 OF 2026
Shri Suryakant Chunnilal Jaipuria and another .Vs. Shri Vaibhav S/o Suryakant
Jaipuria
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
or directions and Registrar's order
Mr. S.P. Kshirsagar, Advocate for petitioner.
CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 08/05/2026
1. The present revision is preferred against order
dated 18.03.2026 passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil
Judge Junior Division, Nagpur, rejecting application for
rejection of plaint at Exhibit 13, filed by the present
petitioners, who are defendants in Regular Civil Suit
No.127 of 2026.
2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit
property, which is a house property is owned by a company
named "M/s Universal Drinks Pvt. Ltd." The plaintiff claims
to be a Director and shareholder of the said company. The
plaintiff has stated that he is residing in the suit property for
a period of over 32 years and accordingly in settled
possession thereof. The plaintiff has alleged that the
defendants tried to take forcible possession of the suit
property from him and therefore he has filed the suit for
injunction.
3. The prayers in the plaint are for declaration of
plaintiff being in exclusive, lawful, settled and peaceful
2 25.cra.64.2026.odt
possession of the suit property, and for a consequential relief
of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from
taking forceful possession thereof.
4. Application for rejection of plaint is filed on
the ground that the suit is not maintainable in the absence
of the company being a necessary party in the suit and on
the ground that jurisdiction of civil Court is barred in view
of Sections 241, 242 and 430 of the Companies Act, 2013.
5. Perusal of plaint averments which are only germane
for deciding application under Order VII Rule 11 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, will indicate that according
to the plaintiff, although the company is owner of the suit
property, he is in exclusive, peaceful and settled possession
of the same for the past 32 years. The plaintiff has alleged
that the defendants tried to take law in their hands, in order
to forcibly evict him from the suit property.
6. It is well settled legal proposition that a person
in settled possession of immovable property is entitled to
seek relief of injunction against unlawful dispossession. In
the considered opinion of this Court, such a right is a civil
right, which can be enforced before the civil Court.
7. In view of the aforesaid, the contention that
civil Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit,
cannot be accepted. It must also be stated that the grievance
of the plaintiff with respect to threat to possession by use of
force is pertaining to act of alleged individual wrong by the
defendant Nos.1 and 2. Such alleged wrong cannot be
attributed to them in their capacity of directors or office
3 25.cra.64.2026.odt
bearers of the company. The provisions of Companies Act
are not attracted.
8. The contention that the company is a necessary
party to the suit, since the company is the owner of the
property, cannot be accepted because the plaintiff is not
seeking any injunction against the company. It is obvious
that order or decree, if any, to be passed in the suit will bind
only to the parties to the suit namely defendant Nos.1 and 2
and not the company.
9. In view of the aforesaid, civil revision
application is rejected with no order as to costs.
(ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.)
C.L. Dhakate
