cra96.26 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 25 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 96 OF 2026 Bhagwan Shivba Devkar Thru. Its G.p.a. Holder Shankar Bhagwan Devkar And Another VERSUS Jaibai Devrao Hake And Others ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Govind B. Chate ….. CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. DATED : 31st AUGUST, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. Learned advocate for the applicants has filed a service affidavit stating that the notices were sent to the respondents by speed post; however, the same were returned to the sender. He has also filed the consignment tracking report along with the envelopes, which indicate that the respondents refused to accept the notices. The affidavit is taken on record and marked “X” for identification. 2. Learned advocate for the applicant further pointed out the impugned order and submitted that no cause of action arose on the date on which the earlier suit was withdrawn by filing a pursis. 3. On perusal of the plaint and the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C., it appears that the learned trial Court has 2026:BHC-AUG:39754 cra96.26 -2- rightly concluded that a cause of action exists and that the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact. There was no substance in the application. Accordingly, the application came to be rejected. 4. On perusal of the impugned order, this Court is of the view that the existence of a cause of action and the issue of limitation cannot be a ground for allowing the present revision application, as rightly held by the learned trial Court in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the impugned order. There is, therefore, no substance in the grounds of objection raised by the applicant. Accordingly, the revision application is rejected. 5. The pending civil application is also disposed of. (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) rlj/