1 RA 146.2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 146 OF 2025 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No.64 OF 2024 Vaijanath Venkatrao Jadhav VERSUS Subhash Ramrao Jadhav And Others ... Advocate for Applicant : Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar Senior Advocate i/b Mr P.B. Gapat Advocate for Respondents : Mr. S.V. Natu ... CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. Dated : August 18, 2026 FINAL ORDER :- 1. The applicant seeks review of the final order dated 9.6.2025 passed by this Court in Civil Revision Application No.64 of 2024, whereby this Court rejected plaint in Special Civil Suit No.146 of 2023 instituted before learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Nanded. 2. The applicant herein instituted Special Civil Suit No.146 of 2023 seeking decree of specific performance of agreement to sale and perpetual injunction. Respondent filed application under Order VII rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code contending that plaintiff had previously instituted Regular Civil Suit No.265 of 2021 claiming relief of perpetual injunction on the basis of alleged agreement to sale. In that suit, he omitted to seek relief of specific performance of contract. As such, 2026:BHC-AUG:36380 2 RA 146.2026.odt present suit is barred by Order II Rule 2 of Civil Procedure Code. The trial Court was pleased to reject the application relying upon observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Gurubux Singh Vs. Bhooralal reported in AIR 1964 Supreme Court 1810. 3. Respondents approached this Court against order rejecting their application. This Court, upon hearing learned advocate appearing for respective parties, ordered to reject the plaint in Special Civil Suit No.146 of 2023, thereby allowing the application Exhibit-47 filed by the Respondents. 4. Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Review Applicant submit that this Court missed to consider the mandate of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Gurubux Singh wherein, it is held that, in absence of pleadings of previous suit on record and proof of contents thereof indicating identity of cause of action in two suits, technical bar under Order II Rule 2 of Civil Procedure Code would not operate. He would further submit that mere availability of pleadings of previous suit would not be sufficient to consider the Bar under Order II Rule 2 of Civil Procedure Code unless plea raised in previous suit is proved by leading evidence. Mr. Katneshwarkar would further submit 3 RA 146.2026.odt that, in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of S. Valliammai and others Vs. S. Ramanathan and another reported in (2026) INSC 372, bar under Order II Rule 2 of Civil Procedure Code would not result in rejection of plaint Under order VII Rule 11 (d) of the Code. 5. Per contra, Mr. Natu, learned advocate appearing for Respondents would submit that, this Court ordered rejection of plaint after considering factual matrix and material placed on record. The series of Judgments are considered which stipulates that plaint can be rejected if on face of pleadings and material relied in plaint, bar under Order II Rule 2 is discernible. He would urge that even assuming that in light of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in case of S. Valliammai and others, some arguable case can be made out, applicant cannot seek review on the basis of subsequent judgment of Supreme Court. 6. Having considered submissions advanced by learned advocates appearing for respective parties, this Court finds that order under review has been passed after considering pleadings in Special Civil Suit No.146 of 2023 and Regular Civil Suit No.265 of 2021, which were filed on the basis of one and the same transaction. Previous suit i.e. Regular Civil Suit 4 RA 146.2026.odt No.265 of 2021 was filed for decree of perpetual injunction on premise that applicant is in possession of suit property on the basis of agreement to sale, but respondents were dealing with property with third parties and disturbing possession of applicant, whereas Special Civil Suit No.146 of 2023 has been instituted seeking specific performance of agreement to sale. This Court concluded that at the time of institution of Regular Civil Suit No.265 of 2021, applicant had cause of action to raise claim for specific performance, which he failed. Hence, subsequent suit seeking performance of contract is barred by Order II Rule 2 of Civil Procedure Code. Pertinently, pleadings in present suit specifically refers to pleadings in the previous suit. The applicant has not disputed contents of pleadings in both the suits. In light of admitted position, this Court analyzed pleadings in both the suits and arrived at conclusion that present suit is barred by law. It is, therefore, difficult to accede contention of applicant that the order under review is passed in ignorance of pleadings in the suit. 7. So far as reliance of applicant on exposition of law in case of S. Valliammai and others is concerned, this Court finds that Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered said Judgment on 16.4.2026. Further, explanation to sub-clause (2) of Order 47 prescribes that the decision on a question of law on which 5 RA 146.2026.odt judgment of the court is based has been reversed or modified by subsequent decision of superior court; shall not be a ground for review of such judgment. Therefore, assuming that the judgment of Supreme Court in case of S. Valliammai and others takes different view than law that stood as on the date of passing the order under review, in light of aforesaid explanation, which is re-iterated by Supreme Court in case of Shanti Devi Vs State of Haryana and others reported in (1999) 5 SCC 703, no good ground for review can be made out. 8. The Supreme Court in case of Lilly Thomas and others Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2000) 6 Supreme Court Cases 224 observed that power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake, but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise. Mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review. 9. In this backdrop, this Court do not find any good ground to invoke the powers under Order 47 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code in factual matrix. 6 RA 146.2026.odt 10. In result, Review Application sans merit, hence dismissed. ( S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR ) Judge … aaa/-