90-cra--358-2023.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 358 OF 2023 Shri Vitthal Shripati Gore and Ors … Applicants vs. Chetan Chandrashekhar Shinde and Ors … Respondents Mr. Jaydeep Deo for the Applicants. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 19th NOVEMBER 2025 ORDER: 1. This civil revision application is filed by the original defendants to challenge the order rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’). 2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the suit is filed for specific performance and declaration. In the suit, the plaintiff has pleaded that the Regular Civil Suit No. 734 of 2000 is still pending. However, the said suit is dismissed. Hence, there will be a bar under Order IX Rule 9 of the CPC. The plaint therefore deserves to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC. He submits that the applicants have also raised objection to the cause of action and limitation. 3. I have perused the plaint. The dismissal of the Regular Civil Suit No. 734 of 2000 is not a part of the pleadings in the plaint. The plaintiff has pleaded that the suit is still pending. The cause of action Page no. 1 of 2 varsha 90-cra--358-2023.doc to file the suit is also specifically pleaded in the plaint. In view of the pleadings, the trial court has observed that the suit would warrant a trial, and the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold. On reading the plaint, the cause of action to file a suit is seen pleaded by the plaintiffs as the cause of action pleaded is of 5th November 2012. According to the plaintiffs, the suit is within limitation. Hence, the trial court has rightly observed that the issue would be a mixed question of law and fact. 4. So far as the bar under Order IX Rule 9 of the CPC is concerned, the same cannot be decided under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC by relying upon the contentions raised by the defendants. The trial court has therefore rightly dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. There is no jurisdictional error or any other manifest error in the reasons recorded in the impugned order, warranting interference in the exercise of power under Section 115 of the CPC. 5. The application is therefore dismissed. 6. It is clarified that the observations in the impugned order are restricted to the decision of the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. Hence, all contentions of the parties on the merits are kept open, to be decided in the suit. (GAURI GODSE, J.) Page no. 2 of 2