JUDGMENT :

SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.

1. Both the Civil Revision Applications arise out of the orders passed in applications fled under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.) in Special Civil Suit No. 100 of 2022. The Revision Applicant in CRA No. 52 of 2023 is defendant No. 1 and the Revision Applicants in CRA No. 40 of 2023 are defendant Nos. 3 and 4 in the Special Civil Suit No. 100 of 2022. As the orders arise out of applications fled in Special Civil Suit No. 100 of 2022, the matters were heard together and is being decided by this common judgment.

2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by their status before the trial Court.

3. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff firm through its partner fled Special Civil Suit No. 100 of 2022 on 9th March, 2022 inter-alia seeking recovery of sum of Rs. 95,84,520/- alongwith interest thereon from defendant Nos. 1 to 4, and for a declaration that all resolutions, remarks and orders passed by defendant No. 1, Municipal Corporation in respect of the payment of compensation to defendant Nos. 2 to 4 are illegal, void, fraudulent and beyond the authority and as such are liable to be rejected. The plaintiff also prayed for implementation of the Government Notification dated 29th April, 2005 to include the acquired land in the reservation of the adjacent plot and consequential rectification of the layout.

4. The Revision Applicant in CRA No. 52 of 2023 fled an application on 05th May, 2022 under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(d) of C.P.C. seeking rejection of the plaint. It was contended that as per the provisions of Section 487 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (“MMC Act, 1949”) there is a requirement of pre-suit notice which has not been complied with in the present case and as such the institution of the suit is barred. The second ground on which the rejection was sought, was that under the provisions of Section 487(1)(b) of the MMC Act, 1949 the suit is to be instituted within a period of six months from the date of accrual of the cause of action. The third objection raised was that considering the provisions of Section 149 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, the jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred.

5. As regards the Revision Applicant in CRA No. 40 of 2023 is concerned, the application was preferred on 18th June, 2022 seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaint challenges the resolutions which were passed in the year 2015 and as such was barred by limitation. It may be noted that learned Counsel for the Revision Applicant in CRA No. 40 of 2023 at the outset pointed out that although the application was fled under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the C.P.C. at the time of argument submission were also advanced as regards non-disclosure of the cause of action, which was considered by the trial Court, as is evident from the issues which are framed by the trial Court.

6. To the application under Order 7 Rule 11, the plaintiff fled the say on 18th June, 2022 and contended that the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and that the cause of action has been distinctly stated to have arisen in the month of September, 2019. It was further contended that as stated in paragraph 17 of the the plaint, the pre-suit notice was given in the year 2017 and that without prejudice to the same the acts of Municipal Corporation cannot be said to be done in pursuance or execution of the Act and, therefore, no such notice is in fact required.

7. As regards the application fled by defendant Nos. 3 and 4 is concerned, the plaintiff in their reply dated 01st July, 2022 contended that the suit has been fled for recovery of the compensation which is illegally paid to the defendants and the defendants are assuming that suit is for challenging the resolution passed by the Municipal Corporation. It was further contended that issue of limitation is mixed question of law and fact.

8. The trial Court wh