Bombay High Court
MANISHA MANOHAR BARE AND ORS.versusSUREKHA AMOL KAMBLE AND ANR.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SANDEEP V MARNE
Holding
The civil revision application is dismissed as no relief is warranted, though the trial court must prioritize the pending suit.
Summary
The applicants filed a civil revision seeking relief against the respondents, contending that the trial court erred in allowing two separate claims for Permanent Alternate Accommodation (PAA) concerning a single room in an old building. The respondents, particularly Defendant No.1, raised a specific defence that only one PAA could be granted, arguing that no decree could be passed under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC. The court noted that the sister‑in‑law’s suit (L.C. Suit No.4335 of 2013) had already been decreed, and emphasized the need for an expeditious decision in the pending suit (L.C. Suit No.301 of 2014). It held that the revision application did not merit any relief and was therefore dismissed. However, the trial court was directed to accord due priority to the pending suit, given its long pendency since 2014 and the earlier decree in the companion suit.
Issues considered
- Whether the specific defence that only one Permanent Alternate Accommodation can be granted precludes the decree under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.
- Whether the civil revision application should be allowed to set aside or modify the trial court's orders.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order XII Rule 6
Subjects
- Civil revision
- Permanent Alternate Accommodation
- Order XII Rule 6
- Specific defence
- Trial court priority
Judgment
k 1/2 24 cra 371.23 as.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.371 OF 2023
Manisha Manohar Bare & Ors. ....Applicants
V/S
Surekha Amol Kamble & Ors. ....Respondents
_________
Ms. Anita Borkar for the Applicants.
Mr. Prathamesh Bhargude with Ms. Babita Kesharwani for Respondents.
__________
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATE : 12 FEBRUARY 2026.
P.C.:
1. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for parties.
2. It appears that Defendant No.1 has raised a speci9c defence that
there was only one room in the old building in respect of which there are
two claims. The Plaintiffs have 9led L.C. Suit No.301 of 2014 whereas
sister-in-law of Plaintiff No.1 has 9led L.C. Suit No.4335 of 2013. In both
the Suits, Permanent Alternate Accommodations (PAA) are sought. It is
the case of Defendant No.1 that only one PAA can be granted. In this
view of the matter, it cannot be held that there is any admission on the
part of Defendant No.1 for passing of a decree under provisions of Order
XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code).
3. The Suit of the sister-in-law (L.C. Suit No.4335 of 2013) is already
decreed. It is in the interest of the Plaintiffs that they prosecute L.C. Suit
No.301 of 2014 and get the same decided in an expeditious manner.
katkam Page No. 1 of 2
k 2/2 24 cra 371.23 as.doc
4. The Civil Revision Application is accordingly disposed of without
granting any relief in favour of the Applicants. The Trial Court shall
however accord due priority to the Suit considering the position that the
same is pending since the year 2014 and that companion L.C. Suit
No.4335 of 2013 has already been decided.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)
SUDARSHAN
RAJALINGAM
KATKAM
Digitally signed by
SUDARSHAN
RAJALINGAM KATKAM
Date: 2026.02.13
15:29:47 +0530
katkam Page No. 2 of 2
Checking your session…