A civil suit must disclose a valid cause of action; submission of frivolous claims to prolong litigation is impermissible and warrants rejection at the outset.

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

1) Revisionary jurisdiction of this Court is invoked for setting up a challenge to the order dated 22 December 2017 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Daund, rejecting the application preferred by the Applicants/Defendants seeking rejection of Plaint under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code).

2) There is a chequered history of litigation between the parties. The great-grandmother of Applicant Nos.1 and 2 initiated the litigation by filing Special Civil Suit No.76 of 1996 for partition and separate possession against Respondent No.1 and his wife. Said Suit was dismissed on 30 October 1999. The Plaintiffs in that Suit filed First Appeal No.192 of 2001 before this Court. By Judgment and Order dated 3 February 2011, the First Appeal was allowed and the Suit was remanded for fresh decision. Respondent No.1 and his wife sought review of order dated 3 February 2011 and their Review Petition came to be dismissed. After remand, the Suit was renumbered as RCS No. 65 of 2012. In that Suit, the Trial Court passed a preliminary decree for partition fixing the shares between the parties. Aggrieved by the preliminary decree, Respondent No.1 and his wife filed Regular Civil Appeal No.82 of 2012 before the District Court, Baramati. The Appeal came to be dismissed on 22 April 2013. Respondents preferred Second Appeal in this Court, which came to be dismissed on 24 October 2013. Respondents sought review of order dated 24 October 2013 and the Review Petition was dismissed on 3 March 2016. True to their litigative spirit, Respondents approached the Hon’ble Apex Court by filing SLP No.008436 of 2016 challenging the order of dismissal of Second Appeal and also filed a separate SLP challenging the rejection of Review Petition. Both the SLPs came to be dismissed by order dated 8 April 2016.

3) Since the preliminary decree was in respect of agricultural land, a precept was sent to Collector for effecting partition as per the preliminary decree. The Collector dispatched the proceedings to Tehsildar, Daund for effecting partition. The Applicants filed Final Decree Application No.1 of 2012 before the Trial Court for drawl of final decree in pursuance of the preliminary decree. Respondents preferred Application at Exhibit-72 in the Final Decree Application No.1 of 2012 seeking alteration in the shares in the preliminary decree. The said application was dismissed on 28 September 2016. Against dismissal of the said application, Respondents preferred Civil Appeal No.146 of 2016 before the District Court, Baramati. The Civil Appeal No.146 of 2016 came to be finally dismissed by the Appellate Court vide Judgment and Order dated 24 March 2017. The Respondents have preferred Second Appeal (stamp) No.11108 of 2017 in this Court, which came to be allowed and Civil Appeal No.146 of 2016 was remanded for fresh decision by the first Appellate Court. After remand, the Appeal was reheard and again dismissed on 17 November 2017. Against the order of the first Appellate Court dated 17 November 2017 Respondents have preferred Second Appeal No.674 of 2018, which is pending before this Court.

4) Having failed in their defences in Special Civil Suit No.76 of 1996, which was renumbered as RCS 65 of 2012 right upto the Apex Court and having failed in their objection filed in the Final Decree Application No.1 of 2012 upto the first Appellate Court, Respondents came out with an ingenious idea of filing an independent Suit seeking declaration that the decree passed in Suit No.65 of 2012 was obtained by fraud and that therefore same does not bind them. This is how Regular Civil Suit No.250 of 2017 has been instituted by the Respondents. Applicants filed application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code seeking rejection of Plaint in Suit No.250 of 2017, which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 22 December 2017, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present Revision Applicati