Bombay High Court
VALENTINA CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED, THRU. CHAIRMAN MR MARUTRAO VITTHALRAO DESAIversusMR VASUDEO DAULATRAM SADARANGANI AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
- Bench
- GAURI GODSE
Holding
The civil revision application is dismissed as there is no jurisdictional or manifest error in the trial court’s order.
Summary
The Valentina Co-operative Housing Society Ltd filed a civil revision seeking restoration of a revision application that had been dismissed as a rejected case for failure to remove an office objection. The revision challenged the trial court’s order rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The court noted that the plaintiff had already filed a written statement and the trial was underway, and that the delay could be condoned. It held that the trial court correctly refused to reject the plaint on jurisdictional or limitation grounds. Finding no manifest error, the court dismissed the civil revision application.
Issues considered
- Whether the civil revision application should be restored after being dismissed for non‑removal of an office objection
- Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the plaint at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order VII Rule 11
Subjects
- civil revision
- restoration of revision
- office objection
- jurisdiction
- limitation
- Order VII Rule 11
- Civil Procedure Code
Judgment
6-cac-9-2021-rc-717-2017.doc
varsha IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9 OF 2021
IN
REJECTED CASE NO. 717 OF 2017
IN
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION(ST) NO. 29877 OF 2016
Valentina Co-operative Housing Society … Applicant
Limited through Chairman Mr. Marutrao
Vitthalrao Desai
vs.
Digitally
signed by
VARSHA
Mr. Vasudeo Daulatram Sadarangani and Anr … Respondents
VARSHA VIJAY
VIJAY RAJGURU
RAJGURU Date:
2026.02.18
13:15:56
+0530
Mr. Avinash V. Chaudhary, Mr. Jayendra Khairnar, Ms. Roshani R.
Shinde, Mr. Ameya A. Chaudhary for the Applicant.
CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.
DATED : 17th FEBRUARY 2026
ORDER:
1. This civil application is filed for restoration of the civil revision
application which was dismissed for non removal of office objection
and was registered as a rejected case.
2. The civil revision application is filed by the applicant to
challenge the order passed by the trial court rejecting the application
under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
Page no. 1 of 2
6-cac-9-2021-rc-717-2017.doc
3. I have perused the copy of the plaint annexed to the civil
revision application. Learned counsel for the applicant is unable to
point out the ground for rejection of the plaint at the threshold. He
further submits that the applicant has already filed the written
statement and the trial has proceeded.
4. I have perused the reasons in the application. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, the delay is condoned, and the
application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b). The civil
revision application is restored to the file.
5. The plaintiff has pleaded the ownership in respect of the suit
property based on the sale deed executed by the developer. The
suit was filed on the ground that the defendant society has no right
to impose any restriction on the plot holders. Considering the
pleadings, the trial court has rightly refused to reject the plaint at the
threshold on the ground of bar of civil court’s jurisdiction or on the
ground of limitation.
6. I do not see any jurisdictional or any other manifest error in
the impugned order warranting any interference by this court.
7. The civil revision application is therefore dismissed.
(GAURI GODSE, J.)
Page no. 2 of 2
Checking your session…