Vikas Shankarrao Goje And Another v. Karamjeet Singh S/O Jarnail Singh Rehal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.41 OF 2026 Vikas Shankarrao Goje and anr.

Vs.

Karamjeet Singh S/o. Jarnail Singh Rehal Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order Mr. H. S. Chitaley, Advocate for applicants (through V.C.). CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.

DATE : 16.04.2026.

.

The present revision is preferred against order dated 07.01.2026 passed by the learned 6th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, on application at Exhibit 25 in Regular Civil Suit No.1677 of 2020. The said application is filed by the petitioners, who are defendants in the suit for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "the CPC") and the suit is for perpetual injunction. 2.

It is the case of plaintiff that the suit property, which is a plot adjoining to his residential house, was purchased in the name of his brother, Surendra Singh Rehal, from the funds of a business undertaking named Bhagat Singh Rehal, which according to the plaintiff, is a family business of the plaintiff and his family members. The plaintiff claims to be in possession of the suit property since the year 2003.

3.

Perusal of plaint also indicates that the plaintiff claims to be in possession of the suit property even in the litigation inter se between the family members. The said facts can be culled out from reading of paragraphs 3 to 5 of the plaint.

4.

The contention of learned advocate for the revision petitioners are that a suit simplicitor for injunction, in the facts of the present case will not be maintainable, inasmuch as the plaintiff also claims title over the suit property by pleading that the suit property was purchased in the name of his brother from the funds of family business.

5.

The learned advocate has placed reliance on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kayalulla Parambath Moidu Haji Vs. Namboodiyil Vinodan, reported in (2022) 20 SCC 310.

6.

The learned Trial Court has rejected the application holding that whether declaration of title will be necessary or not, cannot be decided at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC and that the evidence brought on record will be required to be considered in order to deal with the said contention. The learned Trial Court has also held that the power to reject the plaint is a drastic power, which need not be exercised in the facts of the case.

7.

It is also noticed that earlier application for rejection of plaint filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the

CPC was rejected vide order dated 24.02.2021, Mr. Chitaley, the learned advocate for the revision petitioners contends that application at Exhibit 10 was not filed for rejection of plaint, but for want of payment of adequate court fees and also on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. He, therefore, contends that rejection of earlier application could not be a ground for rejection of subsequent application, which is filed on different ground.

8.

It is a well settled legal principle that a person who is in settled possession of immovable property cannot be dispossessed therefrom without following due process of law. A person in settled possession of immovable property is entitled to perpetual injunction against forcible dispossession against the whole world, including the true owner. The said legal principle holds good till date.

9.

The plaintiff contends that the suit property, though purchased in the name of his brother, is acquired from the funds of a family business. The plaintiff clearly states that he is in possession of the suit property and machines and other equipment belonging to him are lying at the suit property. Even in the disputes inter se between the family members, the plaintiff has asserted his possession over the suit property.

10.

In view of clear pleadings with respect to settled physical possession over the suit property, the suit as

framed and filed is maintainable.

11.

It is a cardinal principle of law that an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC must be decided only on the basis of plaint averments. The judgments in the case of Kayalulla and Anathula hold that, in a given set of facts, suit simplicitor for injunction may not be maintainable in the absence of a prayer for declaration of title. Both these judgments pertain to cases where the defendant had also set up a title in himself in the written statement. Both these judgments arise out of suits which were decided on merits after recording of evidence. The judgments are delivered in the light of defence taken by the defendant and evidence that had unfolded during the course of trial. Since defence of the defendant cannot be looked into in the present case, which arises out of an order of rejection of plaint, it will be difficult to hold that there is a cloud on the title of plaintiff as set up in the plaint. It needs to be reiterated that the plaint averments will have to be taken on their face value for the purpose of deciding application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.

12.

At this stage, it will not be open for the defendant to contend that the plaint should be rejected on the ground that there is a cloud over title of the plaintiff necessitating a prayer for declaration of title.

13.

The learned Trial Court has not committed any jurisdictional error in rejecting the application for rejection of plaint.

14.

Civil Revision Application is, therefore, rejected. (ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.) T ...

αɳɱαყ