1 cra 83.2025.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Civil Revision Application No.83 of 2025 Rajendra s/o Shalikram Patil and another Vs. Uma w/o Sanjaysingh Janakwar and others Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. D.C.Chahande, Advocate for applicants. Mr. Zoher Shakir, Advocate h/f Mr. N.V.Fulzele, Advocate for non- applicant no.1. CORAM : Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. DATED : 16/09/2026 1. Heard Mr. D.C.Chahanade, learned counsel appearing for the applicants, Mr. Zoher Shakir, learned counsel holding for Mr. N.V.Fulzele, learned counsel appearing for non-applicant no.1. Despite service, none appeared for non-applicant nos.2 and 3. 2. By the present Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “CPC”), the applicants take exception to the order dated 15.07.2023 passed below Exhibit-11 in Regular Civil Suit No.35/2023 by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kamptee, District Nagpur, whereby the learned Trial Court declined to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the CPC. 3. The present applicant nos.1 and 2 herein are the original defendant nos.1 and 2 respectively the present non-applicant no.1 is the original plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No.35/2023. For the sake of brevity, the parties to the present Civil Revision Application shall hereinafter be referred to in their original capacity as the “plaintiff” and the “defendants,” respectively. 4. Having regard to the submissions canvassed by both sides, I have gone through the record. 5. Admittedly, non-applicant no.1/plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No.35/2023 and prayed for declaration that the judgment and decree dated 15.04.2023 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.60/2020 2 cra 83.2025.odt by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kamptee, is obtained by fraud, suppression of facts and misrepresentation and, hence, it is null and void and the said judgment and decree is not binding upon the non-applicant no.1/plaintiff. The plaintiff further payed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. 6. After service of notice, the present applicants/original defendant nos.1 and 2 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the CPC, mainly on the ground that, by virtue of Sale Deed No.3450, dated 19.08.2005, and Mutation Entry No.52 tested and certified by Taluka Inspector of Land Records, Kamptee, the names of the said Rajendra s/o Shalikram Patil and his brother Vijay s/o Shalikram Patil are recorded and they are paying municipal taxes. The said sale deed was executed by Smt.Kamlabai Indrajeetsing Katnas and said sale deed has not been challenged by anyone till date. It is further canvassed that, deceased Kamlabai Indrajeetsing Katnas, during her life time, had filed Regular Civil Suit No.07/2015 and had prayed for permanent injunction against defendant nos.1 and 2/present applicants before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kamptee. The predecessor-in-title of the present applicants had also filed an application seeking temporary injunction but, the said application was rejected. After the trial, Regular Civil Suit No.07/2015 was decided against the present applicants/original defendants in Regular Civil Suit No.35/2023 on 08.02.2016. Since defendant nos.1 and 2/present applicants are brothers, owners of the suit property and, they were issued attornment notices to the tenants namely, (1) Sultan Ahmad, (2)Dr.Sapan Kumar and (3) Smt. Sushilabai, thereby intimating them about the exclusive joint ownership over the suit property by Sale Deed dated 19.08.2005 and Mutation Entry No.52. Therefore, the ownership of the suit property was recorded in the names of the present applicants/defendant nos.1 and 2, since the deceased Smt. Kamlabai Indrajeetsing Katnas was not the owner of the property on 3 cra 83.2025.odt the day of filing of the suit. Therefore, no cause of action survives in favour of the present non-applicant no.1/plaintiff and, as such the suit of the non-applicant no.1/plaintiff is barred by law. Further, non-applicant no.1/plaintiff, having no locus standi to file the suit, and hence, prayed for rejection of the plaint. 7. On 15.07.2023, the learned Trial Court passed the impugned order below Exhibit-11, holding that, non-applicant no.1/plaintiff filed a suit contending that, the judgment and decree dated 15.04.2023 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.60/2020 against the defendants for ejectment, possession, arrears of rent and for inquiry into mesne profits was obtained by virtue of misrepresentation. Therefore, the said decree is not binding upon him. Though defendant nos.1 and 2 claim that, they have purchased the suit property from deceased Smt.Kamlabai Indrajeetsing Katnas by a registered Sale Deed dated 19.08.2005, Regular Civil Suit No.60/2020 was proceeded ex parte, which culminated in an ex parte decree dated 15.04.2023. Thereafter, the present non-applicant/plaintiff obtained a certified copy of the judgment and decree on 18.04.2023. It further appears that, defendant nos.1 and 2 never came into possession of the suit property at any point of time. So also, alleged that the service of notices for eviction issued by the present applicants/original defendant nos.1 and 2 and defendant nos.3 and 4 and the notices allegedly issued in Regular Civil Suit No.60/2020 were never disclosed to defendant nos.3 and 4 in Regular Civil Suit No.247/2015. Therefore, by all these means, the present applicants/original defendants obtained a decree in Regular Civil Suit No.60/2020 by intentionally suppressing the material facts and, non- applicant no.1/plaintiff was not impleaded as a party to the former suit. Further, the present applicants/original defendants succeeded in disposing of the suit property, which would certainly defeat the claim of the non-applicant/plaintiff. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants 4 cra 83.2025.odt canvassed that, the original owner of the property, Smt. Kamlabai Indrajeetsing Katnas, executed a sale deed on 19.08.2005 in favour of the present applicants/original defendants and transferred the suit property. So also, the mutation entry was effected with the Revenue Authorities, which confers the right upon the present applicants/original defendants over the suit property. Therefore, non- applicant no.1/plaintiff, having no right or locus, had no cause of action to file the suit. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for non- applicant/plaintiff canvassed that, the non-applicant/plaintiff has been in possession of the suit property for more than 34 years, as he is the nephew of Smt. Kamlabai Indrajeetsing Katnas, the original land owner, who had executed a registered Will in favour of the non- applicant/plaintiff on 08.07.2018 and bequeathed the suit property. Further, one Regular Civil Suit No.247/2015 was filed by non- applicant nos.3 and 4 against non-applicant no.1/plaintiff and late Kamlabai Indrajeetsing Katnas for declaration and permanent injunction claiming that, they are tenants of late Kamlabai Indrajeetsing Katnas in respect of a shop admeasuring 10 ft. x 10 ft. and that the tenancy was created between them and Smt. Kamlabai Indrajeetsing Katnas. However, the said suit was dismissed on 27.11.2021. Further, defendant nos.1 and 2 filed Regular Civil Suit No.60/2020 against the present non-applicant nos.3 and 4/original defendant nos.3 and 4 for ejectment, possession, arrears of rent and for inquiry into mesne profits claiming that, they had purchased the suit property from Smt. Kamlabai Indrajeetsing Katnas under a registered sale deed dated 19.08.2005, but the said suit was proceeded ex parte and ultimately, the judgment and decree was passed ex parte. Therefore, the cause of action arose to file Regular Civil Suit No.35/2023 after the non-applicant/plaintiff came to the knowledge of the judgment and decree dated 15.04.2023 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.60/2020. So also, non-applicant no.1, having 5 cra 83.2025.odt the Will executed by the original owner, Smt. Kamlabai Indrajeetsing Katnas, and his right having been prejudiced, hence, cause of action arose. Therefore, the learned Trial Court passed the impugned order and rightly rejected the application against all the applicants/defendants and hence, prayed for rejection of the Civil Revision Application. 10. Admittedly, the present non-applicant no.1, who is the plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No.35/2023, was not a party to Regular Civil Suit No.60/2020. On perusal of the judgment and decree dated 15.07.2023, it prima facie appears that, the present applicants/defendants in Regular Civil Suit No.35/2023 had filed Regular Civil Suit No.60/2020 against the present non-applicant no.2- Sushilabai wd/o Ghanshyam Raraiyya and non-applicant no.3 - Lekhraj s/o Chaitram Raraiyya for ejection, possession, arrears of rent and for inquiry into mesne profits in respect of suit property bearing Municipal Council Nos.S-396 to S-398, Sheet No.5, Block No.38, known as Meherban Singh’s Wada, near Goyal Talkies, Kamptee, District-Nagpur. In the said suit, the present applicants claimed that, they are joint exclusive owners of the suit premises on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 19.08.2005 executed by Smt. Kamlabai Indrajeetsing Katnas. The said suit was decreed ex parte. However, the present non-applicant no.1/plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No.35/2023 was not a party to the said suit. The present non- applicant/plaintiff specifically claimed that, he is the owner and in possession of the suit premises by virtue of a registered Will executed by Smt. Kamlabai Indrajeetsing Katnas on 08.07.2018, vide Sr.No.3418. Therefore, it is an admitted fact that, the present non- applicant/plaintiff no.1 was not having knowledge about the filing of Regular Civil Suit No.60/2020 by the present applicants/original defendant nos.3 and 4. Therefore, non-applicant no.1 filed Regular Civil Suit No.35/2023 and prayed for a declaration. Since, non- applicant/original plaintiff claimed ownership of the suit land by 6 cra 83.2025.odt virtue of a registered sale deed and by way of the judgment and decree dated 15.04.2023 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.60/2020, the right of the present non-applicant/original plaintiff was certainly prejudiced, hence, the cause of action arose and he had locus standi to question the legality and validity of the earlier judgment and decree passed in former suit. On 15.07.2023, the learned Trial Court passed the impugned order passed below Exhibit-11 in Regular Civil Suit No.35/2023 and rejected the application, which does not appear to be illegal, bad in law and no perversity is found. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Application stands dismissed. (Y.G.KHOBRAGADE, J.) Mukund Ambulkar Signed by: Ambulkar (MLA) Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 17/09/2026 18:13:59