-CRA-500-2026.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 500 OF 2026 Vimal Dnyandeo Chalke, Since deceased through her heirs, Sunil Dnyandeo Chalke & Anr ...Applicants Versus Kailas Pradhan Kunjir and Ors ...Respondents Mr. Akshay Petkar, with Mayuresh Ingale and Kinnari Raut, i/b Mayuresh Lagu, for the Applicants. CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 22nd SEPTEMBER 2026 ORDER: 1. Heard Mr. Akshay Petkar, the learned Counsel for the Applicant. 2. This Revision Application is directed against an order dated 28th July 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge, whereby an Application preferred by the Applicants-original Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for the rejection of the Plaint under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“the Code”), came to be rejected. 3. Respondent No.1-Plaintiff instituted a suit seeking a decree of perpetual injunction to restrain the Defendants from causing obstruction to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff ARS 1/5 ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Digitally signed by ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Date: 2026.09.28 18:31:34 +0530 -CRA-500-2026.DOC over 12 R land out of Gat No. 61/1, Pimple Saudagar (“the suit property) and also for damages. 4. One Pradhan Kunjir, the predecessor-in-title of the Plaintiff, came in possession of the suit property under an Agreement for Sale executed on 17th March 1989 by the then holders Kanu Sathe, Jalindar Sathe and Machindra Sathe. The predecessor-in-title of the Plaintiff, had parted with the entire consideration and had been in possession of the suit property under the said Agreement for Sale. The Plaintiff has erected a structure over the suit property with a compound wall. 5. The predecessor-in-title of the Defendants under the registered Sale Deeds dated 13th February 1996 and 16th February 1996 had acquired 5 R land from Suresh Kate and Kaushalya Tiwaskar. However, the Defendants never obtained the possession of the land purportedly purchased under the said Sale Deeds. There are discrepancies in the boundaries of the lands shown in the Sale Deeds in favour of the Defendants and the Sale Deeds in favour of the Vendors of the predecessor-in-title of the Defendants. Thus, disputes have arisen between the Plaintiff and Defendants over possession and boundaries of the suit properties and possession thereof. 6. The Plaintiff claims the measurement carried out by the cadastral surveyor on 5th September 2022 is faulty and illegal. Therefore, the Defendants have no right to disturb the possession and enjoyment of ARS 2/5 -CRA-500-2026.DOC the Plaintiff over the suit property on the basis of the said measurement. Hence, the suit. 7. Mr. Petkar, the learned Counsel for the Applicant, submitted that the cause of action shown in the Plaint is illusory. Secondly, the Plaintiff has referred to the measurement of the year 2018 and, yet, instituted the suit in the year 2025, which is ex-facie barred by law of limitation. Thirdly, the Plaintiff is claiming on the basis of an Agreement for Sale which does not create any interest in the immovable property. In contrast, the predecessor-in-title of the Defendants have acquired the 5R land out of Survey No. 61/1 under the registered Sale Deeds. Thus the Plaint deserves to be rejected. 8. I find it difficult to accede to the submissions of Mr. Petkar. As noted above, the Plaintiff has claimed that, the predecessor-in-title of the Plaintiff and, after his demise, the Plaintiff has been in actual and peaceful possession of the suit property pursuant to an Agreement for Sale dated 17th March 1989 executed in favour of the predecessor-in- title of the Plaintiff. Conversely, though the predecessor-in-title of the Defendants claim to have acquired 5R land out of Survey No. 61/1 under the registered Sale Deed, yet, the predecessor-in-title of the Defendants and, after her demise, the Defendants have never been put in possession of the suit property. ARS 3/5 -CRA-500-2026.DOC 9. It appears disputes have arisen between the parties and the proceedings have ensued before the Revenue Authorities. On the basis of the measurement, the legality and validity of which the Plaintiff assails, the Defendants have allegedly threatened to dispossess the Plaintiff. 10. The aforesaid being the nature of the suit, it cannot be urged that the Plaint does not disclose any cause of action. The suit also does not seem to be ex-faice barred by law of limitation as the measurement was allegedly carried out on 5th September 2022, though the Application for measurement was filed in the year 2018. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to protect his possessory rights on the strength of the assertions that the predecessor-in-title of the Plaintiff was put in possession of the suit property pursuant to an Agreement for Sale is a matter for adjudication at the trial. 11. Having regard to the aforesaid nature of the claim in the suit, where the Plaintiff claims that his settled possession is threatened on the basis of the measurement carried out by the cadastral surveyor, the learned Civil Judge committed no error in rejecting the Application for the rejection of the Plaint. 12. The decision in the case of Correspondence RBANMS Educational Institution Vs B Gunashekar and Anr,1 on which reliance was placed by Mr Petkar, does not govern the facts of the case at hand. 1 2025 SCC OnLine 793 ARS 4/5 -CRA-500-2026.DOC 13. Thus, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction, this Court does not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned order as there does not appear any jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial Court. 14. The Civil Revision Application stands dismissed. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] ARS 5/5