80 CRA 103 OF 2016.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 80 CRA NO. 103 OF 2016 CITY AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. (CIDCO), THR. IT S ADMINISTRATOR, CIDCO, AURANGABA VERSUS HMT LTD., FOOD PROCESSING AND MACHINERY UNIT, MIDC, CHIKALTHANA, A.BAD, THR. ITS OFFICER AND ANOTHE ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Deshmukh Shambhuraje V. AGP for Respondent no. 2 : Mr. V. V. Jahagirdar ... CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 09.03.2026 PER COURT : Heard learned counsel Mr. Deshmukh for the applicant. None appears for respondent no. 1 despite service of notice. It was already indicated that the matter shall be decided finally at the admission stage. 2. Revision is directed against order dated 17.06.2016 passed below Exh. 23 in Special Civil Suit No. 306/2012 rejecting application preferred by the applicant/defendant for dismissing the suit. 3. The respondent has filed Special Civil Suit No. 306/2012 for declaration, perpetual injunction and mandatory injunction which was contested by the applicant. Additionally, application Exh, 23 was preferred to dismiss the suit on the ground of principles of res judicata as well as suppression of material facts. By impugned order it was rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has canvassed various submissions so as to point out that error of jurisdiction has been committed by the Trial Court in rejecting the application. The present suit is sought to be rejected on admitted facts that the respondent had filed Special Civil Suit No, 200/2005 for mandatory injunction, possession and refund of amount. It 1/2 2026:BHC-AUG:11166 80 CRA 103 OF 2016.odt was dismissed on merits vide judgment dated 20.10.2006. Filing of the suit and its dismissal are stated to be suppression of facts. My attention is also adverted to filing of the writ petition and its withdrawal by the respondent. 5. I am guided by the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Pandurangan Vs. T Jayarama Chettiar and another; 2025(10) SCC 279, which lays down that res judicata cannot be a ground for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11B of CPC. Though it is contended by advocate Mr. Deshmukh that plaint is not sought to be rejected on the ground of res judicata but suit is sought to be dismissed being not maintainable, would not impress me for the reasons which are as follows: (i) Neither the issues framed in the present suit has been placed on record nor those were disclosed before the Trial Court while arguing application Exh. 23. (ii) Prima facie the prayers in the present suit and earlier suit are distinct. (iii) There is no provision in law to dismiss the suit at the threshold on the ground of res judicata. 6. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. The Trial Court has taken a reasonable view of the matter. I do not find that any case is made out to exercise jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 7. The Civil Revision Application is rejected. However, it would be open for the applicant to agitate the issue of res judicata, limitation or any other plea as is permissible in law after adducing evidence. ( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) mkd/- 2/2