Neeta Sawant 907-CRA-443-2017.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 443 OF 2017 Abhishek Developer …..Applicant : Versus : Shri. Hemant Krishnaji Nashikkar and Ors. ….Respondents Mr. Ketan A. Dhavle, for the Applicant. Dr. Uday P. Warunjikar, for Respondent Nos.1 to 15. Mr. Rajdeep S. Khadapkar, for Respondent Nos.16 to 18. CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED : 28 NOVEMBER 2025. P.C : 1) The challenge in the Revision Application is to the order dated 27 April 2017 passed by the Civil Judge Junior Division (PMC), Pune by which the application preferred by Defendant No.5 at Exhibit-26 under Section 9A read with Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (the Code) has been rejected. 2) I have heard Mr. Dhavle, learned counsel for the Applicant and Dr. Warunjikar, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1 to 15- Plaintiffs. 3) The application seeking rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code was filed by the Petitioner/Defendant No.5 under a complete _____________________________________________________________________________ PAGE NO. 1 of 2 FRIDAY, 28 NOVEMBER 2025 Neeta Sawant 907-CRA-443-2017.docx misconception that the suit is barred under Section 149 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966. Perusal of prayers in the Suit would indicate that the Suit is essentially filed under Sections 7 and 7A of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (MOFA). If Plaintiff believes that the developer has undertaken construction in contravention of disclosures made under Sections 7 and 7A, the correct remedy is to file a civil suit. Merely because the Plaintiff is required to challenge Commencement Certificate issued under the MRTP Act in Suit filed under Sections 7 and 7A of MOFA, bar under the provisions of Section 149 of the MRTP Act would not come into play. The application filed by Defendant No.5 was mischievous and has rightly been rejected by the Trial Court. No interference is warranted in the impugned order. The Civil Revision Application is accordingly dismissed. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] _____________________________________________________________________________ PAGE NO. 2 of 2 FRIDAY, 28 NOVEMBER 2025 NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Digitally signed by NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Date: 2025.11.28 15:13:17 +0530