13-WP-11009-2016.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11009 OF 2016 Shri Babu Pomu Rathod. … Petitioner Vs. Shri Santosh Dharmu Pawar and Ors.. … Respondents Ms. Neha r. Parte i/b. Mr. Suresh M. Sabrad for the petitioner. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATE : 20th February 2026 ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed by original defendant no.1 to challenge the order dismissing their miscellaneous appeal by the District Court and the order passed by the trial court rejecting their application at Exhibit ‘32’. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have filed an application under Section 9A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (“CPC”) read with Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was not maintainable. She submits that the application was rejected and the defendants filed an miscellaneous civil appeal before the District Court. The 1/3 Swapnil 2026:BHC-AS:8909 13-WP-11009-2016.docx District court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable on the ground that the rejection of the application under Order VII Rule 11 would not be appealable. She further submits that the District Court has recorded the findings on merits of the application at Exhibit ‘32’. Hence, this writ petition would require consideration to interfere with the impugned order. 3. I have perused the papers of the petition. The rejection of the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is revisable under Section 115 of the CPC. The defendants initially filed an appeal which was not maintainable. Since, the impugned order is revisable, I do not see any reason to invoke the writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed the written statement and suit has proceeded further and is at the stage of recording evidence. It is therefore clarified that the objections raised by the petitioner in application at Exhibit ‘32’ were at the preliminary stage. Hence, the observations recorded in the impugned orders are restricted to the decision on the application under Section 9A and Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. Hence, all the 2/3 13-WP-11009-2016.docx rival contentions of the parties are kept open to be decided in the suit at an appropriate stage. 5. The writ petition is rejected subject to the aforesaid observations. [GAURI GODSE, J.] 3/3