cra111.26 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 976 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 111 OF 2026 Suresh s/o Balbhim Palve and another VERSUS Pandharinath s/o Vinayak Palve and another ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Avinash A. Khande Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Yogesh P. Deshmukh ….. CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. DATED : 01st OCTOBER, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. Heard both sides. Learned advocate for the applicants submits that because of earlier suit, the second suit is not maintainable with respect to the prayer to the partition, as contemplated by Order II Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (in short “CPC”). 2. Learned advocate for respondent No.1 pointed out that no such ground was raised in the application for rejection of the plaint. He also referred to the impugned order and submitted that the provisions of Order II Rule 2 of the CPC were not canvassed. Therefore, the reasons recorded in the impugned order make it clear that no plea under Order II Rule 2 of the CPC or of res-judicata was raised. The learned Trial Court, after considering the matter and assigning convincing reasons, has rightly rejected the application. 2026:BHC-AUG:46129 cra111.26 -2- 3. Considering the peculiar set of facts, the applicants are at liberty to file application under Order II Rule 2 of the CPC if feels it necessary. The application is disposed of. If the application is filed as per the liberty given above, said application be decided on its own merit. (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) rlj/