The suit was filed for declaration of title, permanent injunction, and cancellation of a sale deed dated 20.07.2013. (!) Defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint, which was dismissed by the trial court on 08.04.2024. (!) High Court allowed revision petition, rejected the plaint holding the suit barred by limitation due to challenge to a decade-old sale deed and insufficient fraud pleadings. (!) (!) Limitation is a mixed question of law and fact; it cannot form a ground for rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC unless patently and unequivocally clear. (!) Plaintiffs averred cause of action arose in October 2023 when defendant No. 1 first interfered with their possession by attempting to grab suit properties. (!) High Court erred in concluding 10-year delay without considering plaintiffs' claim that sale deed was sham and executed alongside a development agreement on same day. (!) Issues like nature of sale deed and cause of action require trial on evidence, not summary rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. (!) (!) High Court's judgment set aside; suit restored to trial court for decision on merits uninfluenced by higher courts' observations. (!) (!) Trial court directed to expedite proceedings given prior delays. (!)

Babasaheb Ramdas Shirole vs Rohit Enterprises

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 1972

SANJAY KUMAR, ALOK ARADHE
Babasaheb Ramdas Shirole – Appellant
Versus
Rohit Enterprises – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Dr. Arvind S. Avhad, AOR, Mr. Rishabh Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Nishant R. Katneshwarkar, Adv., Mr. Somiran Sharma, AOR,
Mr. Anuj Fulpagar, Adv., Ms. Snigdha Shresth, Adv.

Judgement Key Points

The suit was filed for declaration of title, permanent injunction, and cancellation of a sale deed dated 20.07.2013. (!)
Defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint, which was dismissed by the trial court on 08.04.2024. (!)
High Court allowed revision petition, rejected the plaint holding the suit barred by limitation due to challenge to a decade-old sale deed and insufficient fraud pleadings. (!) (!)
Limitation is a mixed question of law and fact; it cannot form a ground for rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC unless patently and unequivocally clear. (!)
Plaintiffs averred cause of action arose in October 2023 when defendant No. 1 first interfered with their possession by attempting to grab suit properties. (!)
High Court erred in concluding 10-year delay without considering plaintiffs' claim that sale deed was sham and executed alongside a development agreement on same day. (!)
Issues like nature of sale deed and cause of action require trial on evidence, not summary rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. (!) (!)
High Court's judgment set aside; suit restored to trial court for decision on merits uninfluenced by higher courts' observations. (!) (!)
Trial court directed to expedite proceedings given prior delays. (!)

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellants are the plaintiffs in Special Civil Suit No. 126/2023 on the file of the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangamner. The said suit was filed for declaration of title, permanent injunction and cancellation of the sale deed dated 20.07.2013. While so, the defendants in the said suit filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908¹[“CPC”, for short], seeking rejection of the plaint. The trial Court dismissed the same by order dated 08.04.2024.

3. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants in the suit filed Civil Revision Application No. 124/2024 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench. By judgment dated 09.04.2025, the High Court allowed the revision and Special Civil Suit No. 126/2023 on the file of the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangamner, stood rejected.

4. Assailing the said judgment, the plaintiffs in the suit are before this Court.

5. Perusal of the judgment under challenge reflects that the High Court was of the opinion that the suit was barred by limitation. This was on the premise that, by way of the suit filed in the year 2023 the plaintiffs wanted to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(SC) 1972

SANJAY KUMAR, ALOK ARADHEBabasaheb Ramdas Shirole – AppellantVersusRohit Enterprises – Respondent

Related Judgments

Samcar Glass Ltd. VS Commissioner of Central Exicse, Jaipur

Plastikos Packaging VS Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad

SYSTEMS MANUFACTURING LTD VS SYSTEMS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 665

JOGENDRA SINGH VS SURESH MANJULAPUR - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 662

MYSORE WINE PRODUCTS AND ALLIED CO. LTD. , BANGALORE VS PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 663

Bose VS State, rep. by Inspector of Police, Salaikiramam P. S. , - 2000 Supreme(Mad) 1273

Jain Construction Company VS State of Rajasthan - 2000 Supreme(Raj) 912

Voltas Limited VS Joint Collector, Medak - 2000 Supreme(AP) 945

STATE OF BIHAR VS SURENDRA SINGH RAUTELA ALIAS BENGALI - 2000 Supreme(Jhk) 45

Krishna Kumar VS Gulab Khan - 2000 Supreme(Raj) 1546

SANJAY KUMAR, ALOK ARADHE
Babasaheb Ramdas Shirole – Appellant
Versus
Rohit Enterprises – Respondent