Bombay High Court
VASANT BABURAO LIPANE AND OTHERSversusBALASAHEB KACHRU DAHITULE
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The trial court correctly held that the causes of action in the two suits are different and that Order VII Rule 11 does not provide a ground for dismissal on a false or frivolous cause of action, leading to the dismissal of the revision.
Summary
The defendants filed a civil revision under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, claiming that no cause of action existed for the plaintiff’s suit for perpetual injunction. The plaintiff argued that an earlier suit (R.C.S. No. 319 of 2021) had been dismissed in default, and that the new suit (R.C.S. No. 863 of 2025) was therefore barred because the cause of action had already arisen. The trial court examined whether the two suits arose from the same cause of action and held that they were distinct. It further observed that a false or frivolous cause of action is not a ground for dismissal under Order VII Rule 11. Consequently, the court found the revision application without merit and dismissed it. The judgment affirms that Order VII Rule 11 cannot be used to strike out a suit on the basis of a frivolous cause of action when the causes are different.
Issues considered
- Whether the defendants can invoke Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC to dismiss the plaintiff’s suit on the ground that no cause of action exists
- Whether the earlier suit dismissed in default bars the later suit on the ground that the cause of action had already arisen
- Whether the causes of action in the two suits are the same for the purpose of dismissal
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order VII Rule 11
Subjects
- civil revision
- cause of action
- Order VII Rule 11
- perpetual injunction
- default judgment
- successive suits
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:36408
(1) 927 cra 167.26
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
927 CRA NO. 167 OF 2026
VASANT BABURAO LIPANE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
BALASAHEB KACHRU DAHITULE
…..
Advocate for the Applicants : Mr. Taur Mahesh S.
…..
CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 14.08.2026
P.C.:-
1. This Civil Revision Application is filed against the order passed by
the learned C.J.J.D., Newasa, District Ahmednagar on 18.04.2026 below
Exhibits 23 and 32 in R.C.S. No. 863 of 2025. The suit was filed for perpetual
injunction, and the present application has been filed by the defendants under
Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, contending that no
cause of action has arisen for entertaining the suit.
2. It is contended by the plaintiff that, earlier, R.C.S. No. 319 of
2021 was filed by the predecessor of the plaintiff, which came to be dismissed
in default on 21.04.2024. Thereafter, R.C.S. No. 863 of 2025 was filed on
25.09.2025. It is contended that the said suit is not maintainable, as the
cause of action had already arisen at the time of filing of the earlier suit.
(2) 927 cra 167.26
3. Upon perusal of the impugned order and the reasons recorded
therein, it appears that the learned Trial Court held that the causes of action
in both the suits are different. The learned Trial Court further observed that a
false or frivolous cause of action is not a ground contemplated under Order
VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The impugned order is legal and
correct, and there is no substance in the application filed by the defendants.
Hence, the present civil revision application stands dismissed.
[SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.]
mubashir
Checking your session…