1 921cra124.2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR . CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 124 OF 2026 SHRI. MOHD. NUSRAT S/O MOHD. NAZIR ANSARI VS SHRI. RAMPRASAD S/O BENIMADHAV PALI AND ORS. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ms Reshma R. Hiranwar, counsel with Mr. Devidas C. Chahande, counsel for applicant. CORAM : Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. DATED : 20-08-2026 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the revision applicant at length. 2. By the present application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the applicant takes exception to the order dated 04/03/2026 passed below Exhibit No.67 in Regular Civil Suit No. 215 of 2016 by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kamptee, thereby rejected Exhibit No. 67 an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 3. The applicant is the original defendant No.7, whereas the non-applicant No.1 is the original plaintiff and non-applicants Nos. 2 to 7 are the original defendants in Regular Civil Suit No. 215 of 2015. For the sake of brevity, the parties to the present revision, hereinafter will be referred in their original capacity. 4. The non-applicant No.1/plaintiff filed the Regular Civil Suit No. 01 of 2015 before the learned Trial 2 921cra124.2026.odt Court, specifically prayed for decree of equal partition and possession in respect of the agricultural field survey No. 627 of 03 situated at Tekadi Tah. Parshivani, District Nagpur. 5. The Plaintiff has contended that, the suit field is inherited by the forefather of the plaintiff and defendant nos.1 to 6. On 04/11/2023, some of the defendants executed relinquishment deed and on the basis of said relinquishment deed, the mutation entry was effected in the revenue record. However, said mutation entry on the basis of partition was is incorrect because of there were no equal partition amongst the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6. However, his brother Defendant no. 6 sold some portion of suit field in favour of the Defendant no. 7 without there being equal partition. 6. According to the plaintiff, defendant No.6 executed sale-deed in favour of defendant No.7 to the extent of 0.88 R land arising out of field Survey No. 627/3 and in pursuant to said deed, the mutation entry was effected on 21/10/2013. However, the plaintiff came to know about effecting the mutation entry on 18/01/2011, but he received the said documents on 30/09/2013. Therefore, he has instituted the suit within the period of limitation. and cause of action arose on the said date. 7. After the service of notice, the present revision applicant/defendant No.7 filed Exhibit No.67 an application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (b) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking dismissal of the suit on the 3 921cra124.2026.odt ground that plaintiff has fail to explain the cause of action to file the suit. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the revision applicant canvassed that defendant No.7 filed Exhibit No.67 and categorically averted about effecting partition of suit field between the plaintiff and defendant nos. 1 to 6 on 06/12/2003. Thereafter, mutation entry was effected on 06/12/2003 on the basis of partition,. However, in order to mislead the Court, the plaintiff pleaded about effecting mutation entery on 06-12-2013. Therefore, suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation under article 58 of the Limitation Act. However, the learned trial Court passed the impugned order and rejected the application under Order VII Rule 11 of C. P. C., hence, prayed for quash and set aside the impugned order. 9. Needless to say, on 04/03/2026, the learned Trial Court passed the impugned order, holding that though the defendant No.7 raised a grievance that the plaintiff has not challenged the sale-deed dated 27/10/2010 executed in favour of the defendant No.7 by the defendant No.6. However, vide order dated 07/01/2026 passed below Exhibit No.71, the plaintiff amended the plaint and also challenge the sale-deed executed by the defendant No.6 in favour of the defendant No.7. 10. After going through the impugned order it prima facie appears that, while passing the impugned order, the learned trial Court held that, in para-7 of the suit, the plaintiff has given details to show cause for filing 4 921cra124.2026.odt of the suit. Though the defendant No.7 raised the ground that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation, however, the issue about limitation is mixed question of law and facts, which required evidence. Therefore, said issue can not be adjudicated in isolation at this stage. 11. On perusal of the impugned order as well as material placed on record, I do not find that the learned Trial Court has committed any error while passing the impugned order and thre is failure to exercise jurisdiction on part of the learned trial court. Needless to say that, the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court appears to be on the basis of pleadings of both the parties. Therefore, no interference is called for at the hands of this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. 12. Accordingly, civil revision application is dismissed. No order as to costs. [JUDGE] rkn Signed by: Mr. R.K. NANDURKAR Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 24/08/2026 15:08:00