1 969-CRA.134-21.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 969 CRA NO. 134 OF 2021 BHAUSAHEB MANIKRAO CHANDANSHIV VERSUS UTTAM K DAHIBHATE (SHINDE) DECEASED THR HIS LEGAL HEIRS RAMKRUSHNA U. DAHIBHATE (SHINDE) AND ORS ... Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Suryawanshi Prashant D. Advocate for Respondent Nos.1a & 1b : Mr. Dhananjay Deshpande. ... CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 01.08.2025 PER COURT :- 1. Heard both sides. 2. This revision application is directed against order dated 04.03.2021 passed below Exh.19 in Regular Civil Suit No.228 of 2017 by learned 5th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Beed rejecting application under Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code. 3. Applicant is the original defendant who is contesting the suit filed by respondent No.1 for declaration, possession and mesne profit. He filed application Exh.19 under Order VII Rule 11 on the ground that no cause of action is made out and suit 2025:BHC-AUG:20569 2 969-CRA.134-21.odt is hopelessly barred by limitation. After contesting the application, the same is rejected by the impugned order. 4. Respondent No.1 filed suit with following prayers : “अ) वादीचा दावा मंजूर (Decree) करण्यात यावा. ब) वादी वादप्ቔाचे कलम नं. १ मध्ये नमूद वाद मिमळकतीचा मालक असल्याचे जाहीर करण्यात यावे. क) वादी व वादीचे पुव ह्ሪदार यांचे मिवरू्ቍ झालेल्या कु ळ काय्ቕाचे तरतूदी्ቚमाणेच्या कायवाही व आदेश बेकायदेशीर व मिन्ቕरक (illegal, null and void) व वादीचे ह्ሪावर बंधनकारक नसल्याचे जाहीर करण्यात यावे. ड) वादीस वाद्ቇस्त मिमळकतीचा ्ቚत्य्ቌ ताबा ्ቚतितवादींना बेदखल करून देण्या ब्ቌलचा आदेश/तिड्ቅी देण्यात यावा. इ) वादीस ्ቚतितवादींकडून दाव्याचा खच देण्यात यावा. ई) अन्य मागणीस वादी ह्ሪदार आढळल्यास, ती त्याचे ह्ሪात पारीत करण्यात यावी.” 5. Impugned order from paragraph Nos.5 to 7 refers to the discussion in respect of relief of possession. Perusal of the impugned order shows that learned Judge overlooked that relief of two types of declarations are also sought in the plaint. 3 969-CRA.134-21.odt However, what is dealt with is the relief of possession only. The discussion in above paragraphs is in respect of limitation for the relief of possession referring to Articles 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act. The substantial prayers regarding declaration, the relief regarding execution of sale deed and further declaration pertaining to the actions, orders passed by Revenue Authorities are totally overlooked. This amounts to non- application of mind. 6. The purport of the application Exh.19 under Order VII Rule 11 was not to contend that plaint is liable to be rejected to the extent of relief of possession only. Plaint is sought to be rejected in its entirety. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered view that learned Judge has committed grave error of jurisdiction. 7. Instead of expressing my view to the extent of relief of declaration which is skipped from the notice of learned Trial Judge, I find it fit to relegate the matter to the Trial Court to decide the application Exh.19 afresh. Both the sides will be at liberty to make submissions on the merit by citing the judgments in support of their submissions. 8. Civil Revision application is allowed partly. 4 969-CRA.134-21.odt 9. Impugned order is quashed and set aside. 10. The matter is relegated back to Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Beed to decide application Exh.19 afresh on its own merits within a period of one month from today. 11. It is further made clear that the suit shall stand stayed till the inquiry under Order VII Rule 11 is concluded. (SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) ... vmk/-