Shri Suresh S/O Jaikrishna Patil v. Shri Swapnil S/O Ishwar Jarile

1 cra24.22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR.

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 24 OF 2022 ( Suresh s/o Jaikrishna Patil ..vs.. Swapnil s/o Ishwar Jarile) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Shriram Deoras, Counsel for the applicant. CORAM : ROHIT B. DEO , J .

DATED : 08-03-2022 The applicant is the original defendant in Regular Civil Suit 34/2020 which is instituted by the plaintiff seeking cancellation of sale-deed and permanent injunction.

3.

The substratum of the suit plaint is that the plaintiff was in dire need of money and he borrowed Rs.3,85,000/- (Rupees Three Lac Eighty Five Thousand) from the defendant-Mr. Suresh Patil and as security, a document purporting to be sale-deed of the agricultural field was executed on 20-12-2011. The entire plaint is predicated on the assertion that the document was a sham and nominal document and it was agreed that upon repayment of the entire loan, with interest at the rate of 13% per annum, there shall be a re-conveyance. The plaintiff contends that the interest was periodically paid to Mr. Suresh Patil. It is the case of the plaintiff that the entire loan along with interest was paid on 25-4-2019. The plaintiff claims to be in cultivating

2 cra24.22 possession to have sold the crops.

4.

In essence, the case is that the plaintiff is entitled to re-conveyance.

5.

In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that on the face of the averments of the plaint the suit is barred by limitation as is urged by the learned Counsel Mr. Shriram Deoras.

6.

The trial Court did not commit any error in rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code preferred by Mr. Suresh Patil. 7.

The application is sans merit and is dismissed. JUDGE adgokar MANOHARRAO ADGOKAR