An application for rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 cannot be sustained if the determination of a cause of action, limitation, or statutory bar depends on disputed facts that require evidence and a full-fledged trial for adjudication.

JUDGMENT :

DEVAN M. DESAI, J.

1. The present Civil Revision Application is filed by the applicant – original defendant against the judgment and order dated 24.02.2026, passed under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter, referred to as “the Code”) by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Surat in Special Civil Suit No.92 of 2024.

2. Heard learned advocate Viral K. Shah for the applicant and learned advocate Mr. Aspi M. Kapadia and learned advocate Ms. Delshad A. Kapadia for the respondent.

3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

3.1 It is the case of plaintiff that the plaintiff is in lawful possession of an agricultural land bearing Revenue Survey No. 53+54, admeasuring 12,141 sq. meters, situated at Village Gavier, Taluka Majura, District Surat (suit land), for more than 42 years, along with his predecessors-in-title. Plaintiff claims to be deemed purchaser under the provisions of Section 32(O) and Section 32(A) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. Defendant has illegally encroached upon the suit property. Therefore, plaintiff instituted the suit seeking a declaration and injunction restraining the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land without due process of law, and from causing any interference or obstruction in the plaintiff’s possession. Defendant filed an application vide Exhibit – 19 under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code for rejection of plaint. Learned Trial Court vide order dated 24.02.2026 dismissed the application. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned order, the applicant – original defendant is before this Court.

4. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the learned Trial Judge has committed a grave error in not appreciating the fact that the whole case of the plaintiff is based on so called tenancy rights and the same is still not crystallized by the competent authority under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. In such circumstances, whether the plaintiff was tenant of the subject land or not is to be decided by the competent authority under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. It is further submitted that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is completely ousted in the matter relating to tenancy right by way of express provision of Section 85 of The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. Therefore, considering the aforesaid provision it is aptly clear that the suit filed by the plaintiff – respondent herein is not maintainable in view of the specific bar contemplated under Section 85 of the Act.

5. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Judge has failed to appreciate that till today the plaintiff has not been able to establish that the plaintiff was tenant of the subject land and the claim of tenancy was rejected by the learned Mamlatdar & ALT, Surat vide order dated 28.06.2013. In such circumstances, the plaintiff has failed to establish that he was tenant of the subject land and, therefore, whole suit filed by the plaintiff is nothing but a frivolous and sham litigation just to create cloud on title of the property.

6. It is further submitted that the Civil Court would not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the specific provision of Section 85 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. However, the learned Court below has observed that the suit filed by the plaintiff is under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and for protection of the possession, the suit is maintainable. The suit is filed by citing completely illusory cause o