6-cac-9-2021-rc-717-2017.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9 OF 2021 IN REJECTED CASE NO. 717 OF 2017 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION(ST) NO. 29877 OF 2016 Valentina Co-operative Housing Society Limited through Chairman Mr. Marutrao Vitthalrao Desai … Applicant vs. Mr. Vasudeo Daulatram Sadarangani and Anr … Respondents Mr. Avinash V. Chaudhary, Mr. Jayendra Khairnar, Ms. Roshani R. Shinde, Mr. Ameya A. Chaudhary for the Applicant. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 17th FEBRUARY 2026 ORDER: 1. This civil application is filed for restoration of the civil revision application which was dismissed for non removal of office objection and was registered as a rejected case. 2. The civil revision application is filed by the applicant to challenge the order passed by the trial court rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Page no. 1 of 2 varsha VARSHA VIJAY RAJGURU Digitally signed by VARSHA VIJAY RAJGURU Date: 2026.02.18 13:15:56 +0530 6-cac-9-2021-rc-717-2017.doc 3. I have perused the copy of the plaint annexed to the civil revision application. Learned counsel for the applicant is unable to point out the ground for rejection of the plaint at the threshold. He further submits that the applicant has already filed the written statement and the trial has proceeded. 4. I have perused the reasons in the application. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay is condoned, and the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b). The civil revision application is restored to the file. 5. The plaintiff has pleaded the ownership in respect of the suit property based on the sale deed executed by the developer. The suit was filed on the ground that the defendant society has no right to impose any restriction on the plot holders. Considering the pleadings, the trial court has rightly refused to reject the plaint at the threshold on the ground of bar of civil court’s jurisdiction or on the ground of limitation. 6. I do not see any jurisdictional or any other manifest error in the impugned order warranting any interference by this court. 7. The civil revision application is therefore dismissed. (GAURI GODSE, J.) Page no. 2 of 2