GANESH REALITIES THR PARTNER MR. DEVENDRA V PATEL RAJESH J PATEL AND ANR.versusKAIVALYA ENTERPRISES THR ITS MR. KAILASH BABULAL WANI

                                                                             13 CRA-373-26.DOC

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                    CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 373 OF 2026


                      M/s. Ganesh Realities                                       ..Applicant

                              Versus

                      M/s. Kaivalya Enterprises                                …Respondent


                      Mr. Suresh M Sabrad a/w Mr. Vikram N Walawalkar, Mr. Amey
                           Sawant, Ms. Neha Parte, Ms. Eshwaree Kudalkar i/b Mr.
                           Pratik Sabrad, for the Applicant.

                      Mr. S G Karandikar, a/w Mr. Chetan A Alai, Mr. Pranit L
                            Pawar, for the Respondent.

                                                    CORAM :         N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                                                    DATE      :     18th August 2026
SAINATH
SANJAY
BODKHE                ORDER :-
Digitally signed by
SAINATH SANJAY
BODKHE
Date: 2026.08.24
20:59:18 +0530        1.      Heard, Mr. Sabrad, the learned Counsel for the Applicant,

                      and Mr. Karandikar, the learned Counsel for the Respondent.

                      2.      This Civil Revision Application is directed against an order

                      dated 22nd January, 2025 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior

                      Division, Pune in Special Civil Suit No. 1787/2024 whereby an

                      application preferred by the applicant/defendant for rejection of

                      the plaint under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code

                      of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“the Code, 1908”), came to be rejected.

                      3.      The      Respondent/plaintiff    instituted   the   suit   seeking

                      specific performance of the purported contract to sell the
                      SAINATH, PA                             1/7
                                                13 CRA-373-26.DOC

Defendant’s 5/7th share in the land bearing Survey No.69 at

Hissa No.4/1 admeasuring 54 R situated at Village Kothrud,

Pune (“the suit property”).

4.      Late Prabodh Bhaskar Mhatre was one of the co-owners of

the suit property. The legal representatives of late Prabodh

Mhatre executed a sale deed in respect of the share of late

Prabodh Mhatre in the suit property on 19 th May, 2012.

Purushottam Bhaskar Mhatre, another co-owner, had sold his

share in the suit property in favour of Chhaya Dattatray Botre

who, in turn, sold the said 1/7th share in the suit property in

favour of the plaintiff, under a registered sale deed dated 24 th

March, 2022.

5.      The other five co-owners executed a sale deed of their

share in the suit property in favour of the defendant on 15 th

May, 2015.

6.      The plaintiff, thus, became owner of 2/7th share and the

defendant owned      5/7th share in the suit property, which has

been reserved in the development plan by Pune Municipal

Corporation for PMT-2 and for 12 mtrs. service road.

7.      The plaintiff claimed to have approached the defendant in

the month of April, 2023 to purchase its 5/7 th share in the suit

property so as to obtain TDR from Pune Municipal Corporation


SAINATH, PA                       2/7
                                                     13 CRA-373-26.DOC

in respect of the entire suit property. After negotiations, the

defendant agreed to sell its 5/7th share in the suit property in

favour of the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 8,50,00,000/-

(Rupees Eight Crores Fifty Lakhs). Thereafter, the plaintiff

claimed to have taken steps towards the performance of the said

contract      to   evict   the   occupiers   and   remove   the   illegal

encroachment over the suit property. A joint application was

also filed by the plaintiff and defendant for the measurement of

the suit property.

8.      The plaintiff claimed, in breach of the said contract, the

defendant moved the Pune Municipal Corporation to obtain TDR

in respect of its share in the suit property, and the plaintiff

became aware of the same upon the publication of public notice

dated 07th October, 2024 by the Pune Municipal Corporation.

Asserting that, the defendant had resiled from its promise, the

plaintiff instituted the suit for specific performance of the

contract and the consequential reliefs.

9.      The applicant/defendant filed an application for rejection

of the plaint on the ground that, the suit was bad for non-

joinder of necessary parties in as much as the plaintiff had not

impleaded Chhaya Botre, the vendor of 1/7th share, though a

dispute has arisen between the plaintiff and the said Chhaya


SAINATH, PA                            3/7
                                                       13 CRA-373-26.DOC

Botre, and Pune Municipal Corporation. Secondly, the plaint did

not disclose a cause of action.

10.     By the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge rejected

the application.

11.     Mr. Sabrad, the learned Counsel for the applicant,

submitted that, the plaint lacks essential pleadings to sustain a

suit for specific performance. The date of alleged oral agreement

for sale, the date on which the plaintiff demanded the

performance of the contract and the date of refusal of

performance of contract by the defendant are conspicuous by

their absence in the plaint. It was submitted that, the pleadings

in the suit for specific performance should conform to Form

No.47 prescribed in the Code. In the absence thereof, it cannot

be said that, the plaint disclosed a cause of action. Mr. Sabrad

placed a strong reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court

in the case of Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational

Charitable Society Vs. Ponniamman Educational Trust1.

12.     In opposition to this, Mr. Karandikar would submit that,

in the plaint the plaintiff had furnished all the particulars of the

contract for sale of the defendant’s 5/7 th share in the suit

property.     Laying   emphasis   on     the   joint    application   for



1       (2012) 8 SCC 706
SAINATH, PA                        4/7
                                                  13 CRA-373-26.DOC

measurement, Mr. Karandikar would submit that, it cannot be

said that, the averments in the plaint regarding the oral

agreement are without any material to prima facie substantiate

the said claim. The aspect as to whether the plaintiff succeeds

in establishing the said case is wholly irrelevant at the stage of

consideration of prayer for rejection of the plaint.

13.     It is well recognized that, at the stage of consideration of

the prayer for rejection of the plaint, only the averments in the

plaint and the documents annexed with it are required to be

read. The defence of the defendant is not at all germane.

Undoubtedly, the plaint is required to be read as a whole and in

a meaningful manner and not in a formalistic manner. It is

equally well settled that, the provisions contained in Order VII

Rule 11 of the Code, 1908 have been made to nip in the bud a

vexatious and fruitless proceeding. The said provision serves a

definite purpose.

14.     In the case of Church of Christ Charitable Trust &

Educational Charitable Society (supra), on which reliance was

placed on behalf of the applicant, the Supreme Court observed

that, the statutory forms require the date of agreement to be

mentioned to reflect that it does not appear to be barred by

limitation. In addition to the same, in a suit for specific


SAINATH, PA                        5/7
                                                 13 CRA-373-26.DOC

performance, there should be an agreement by the defendant or

by a person duly authorised by a power of attorney executed in

his favour by the owner. In that case, the plaintiff had failed to

produce the power of attorney purportedly executed by the

Defendant No.1 in favour of the Defendant No. 2 on the strength

of which, the Defendant No.2 had entered into an agreement for

sale in favour of the plaintiff. As neither the documents were

filed alongwith plaint nor the terms thereof had been set out in

the plaint, the Supreme Court directed the rejection of the

plaint.

15.     Adverting to the previous pronouncement in the case of T.

Arivandandam vs T. V. Satyapal & anr. 2, the Supreme Court

emphasized that, the trial Court must read the plaint in a

meaningful and not in a formalistic manner and if the plaint is

manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing

a clear right to sue, the trial Court shall exercise its powers

under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, 1908.

16.     There can be quarrel with the aforesaid preposition of law.

However, from a meaningful reading of the plaint in the instant

case, is become evident that, the plaintiff has set up a case of

oral agreement for sale. The period during which such



2       1977 4 SCC 467
SAINATH, PA                        6/7
                                                  13 CRA-373-26.DOC

agreement was arrived at between the parties is disclosed. The

consideration at which the defendant agreed to sell its 5/7 th

share in the suit property is mentioned. The further steps taken

by the plaintiff towards the performance of the said contract,

including a joint application for measurement filed by both the

parties, have been specifically spelled out. In the backdrop of

the aforesaid pleadings, it would be hazardous to come to the

conclusion that, the plaint does not disclose a cause of action.

17.     The other ground pressed into service on behalf of the

defendant for rejection of the plaint, namely, non-joinder of the

necessary parties, does not, even if the case of the defendant is

taken at par, furnish a justifiable ground for the rejection of the

plaint. Therefore, this Court does not find any jurisdictional

error or material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by

the trial Court.

18.     The Civil Revision Application, thus, stands rejected.




                                          [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




SAINATH, PA                         7/7