Aditya Ajay Jaware v. Shirkrushn Rambhau Bawaskar

66. CRA 95.25.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.95 OF 2025 Aditya Ajay Jaware Vs. Shirkrushn Rambhau Bawaskar Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order Mr. U. V. Chakravarty, Advocate for applicant. Mr. M. S. Sharma, Advocate for respondent CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.

DATE : 14.11.2025.

.

The present Revision Application takes exception to the order dated 18.02.2025, by virtue of which application for rejection of plaint filed by the present petitioner in Regular Civil Suit No.7 of 2017, pending on the file of the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Khamgaon is rejected. The said suit is a suit for recovery of money.

2.

It is the contention of the plaintiff that he had advanced a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- to the defendant, who is his friend. Apart from this amount of Rs.2,500/- is claimed towards notice charges.

The defendant/petitioner had filed application for rejection of plaint on several grounds before the learned Trial Court, which came to be rejected vide order dated 18.02.2025.

3.

The learned Advocate for the applicant/ defendant states that the suit is barred in view of Section 13 of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act,

66. CRA 95.25.odt 2014. This is the only ground which is traced into service in the present revision application.

4.

Perusal of the plaint will indicate that the plaintiff had advanced an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- to the defendant in view of their personal relations. The plaint averments do not indicate that the plaintiff is engaged in any systemic activity of money lending, which can be termed to the business of money lending in order to attract the provisions of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014.

5.

The contention raised by the applicant, at best, can be his defense in the suit. However, such a defense cannot be looked into while dealing with an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Civil Revision Application is, therefore, rejected. (ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.) Tanmay...