2025:BHC-AUG:15121 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 76 OF 2024 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3850 OF 2024 IN SA/76/2024

1. Rajindersingh Tarlochansingh Dhingra Age - 65 years, Occ. Business, R/o Plot No.20, M.H. No.5-10-3/1, Hamalwadi, Rajnagar, Railway Station Road, Chatrapati Sambhajinagar (Aurangabad.

2. Mrs. Parvinder Kaur w/o Rajindersingh Dhingra Age- 62 years, Occ. Household, R/o As above.

3. Mr. Karansingh s/o Rajindersingh Dhingra Age - 32 years, Occ : Business, R/o As above. ..APPELLANTS -VERSUS-

1. Ahmed Safwan s/o Ahmed Rizwan Prop. Palm Hills Developers, Age - 30 years, Occ : Business, R/o Row H.No.E-4, situated at Sethi's Green Valley, Rauza Bagh, Chatrapati Sambhajinagar (A. bad).

2. Ejaj Khan Jalik Khan Pathan Age - 34 years, Occ. Business, R/o H.No.4-19-54/55, Bhoiwada, Chatrapati Sambhajinagar (A. bad).

3. Prudent Asset Reconstruction Company Limited R/o Unit No.611, 6th Floor, D Mall, Plot 1, Netaji Subhash Place Pitampura, New Delhi 110034 and Mumbai office at D/213, Kanakia Zillion LBS Marg, Kurla West, Mumbai 400 070 ..RESPONDENTS …

• Sr. Adv. P. R. Katneshwarkar i/b Adv. Shrimant Mundhe, Advocate For Appellants • Adv. Shivashish V. Bhopi, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 • Adv. Naresh B. Tambade, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 • Adv. S. V. Mundhe, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 …

CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.

DATE : 21^st MARCH, 2025 JUDGMENT :

1. The present appeal arises out of an application for rejection of plaint filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The appellants are the original plaintiffs. The appellants had filed a suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 234 of 2021 in the Court of the Learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Aurangabad. The said suit is filed on 23.06.2021. Perusal of the plaint indicates that according to the plaintiffs, they had sold the suit property which comprises of plot No. 20, CTS 19324 MH 5-10-3/1, Hamalwadi Rajnagar, Railway Station Road, Aurangabad to the defendant No. 1 vide registered sale deed dated 13.01.2017. The contention in the plaint is that the defendant no. 1 – purchaser has not paid the entire sale consideration as mentioned in the sale deed, and therefore, ownership right in the suit property does not pass to the defendant no. 1. It is alleged that payment of part consideration was made and for the balance amount post dated cheques were issued. It is averred that the said post dated cheques were misplaced and the defendant no.1 had issued fresh cheques against the same as per correction deed dated 13.09.2017. The plaintiff claims to be in actual physical possession of the suit property although the same is sold to the defendant No. 1 as aforesaid. The plaint makes reference to subsequent transfer of the suit property by defendant No. 1 to the defendant No. 2 vide sale deed dated 05.10.2018. It is also averred in the plaint that the defendant had obtained loan from the defendant No.3 which is a financial institution. The prayers in the plaint are for cancellation of sale deed dated 13.01.2017 and correction deed dated 13.09.2017, executed by plaintiff in favour of defendant no. 1 as also cancellation of sale deed dated 05.10.2018 executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant no. 2; with a prayer for declaration of ownership of the plaintiffs over the suit property; and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from creating third party interest over the suit property as also from disturbing possession of the plaintiffs over the same.

2. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed two separate applications for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (For short, “CPC”). Both these applications have been decided by a common order dated 11.01.2022. The learned Trial Court was pleased to reject the plaint by exercising jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC Aggrieved by the rejection of the plaint as aforesaid, the appellants preferred an appeal bearing Regul