Bombay High Court
GOVIND SHRIDHAR MAHAJANIversusSUDHIR SURESH MANTRI and ANR
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The revision application was dismissed as the cause of action no longer survived.
Summary
The applicants filed a civil revision seeking to quash a decree dated 18 December 2010 passed by the District Judge, Satara, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 115 of 2000. During the pendency of the revision, the applicants sold the suit premises to a third party, thereby extinguishing the original cause of action for eviction based on bona‑fide requirement. The applicants informed the court that they no longer wished to pursue the proceedings and requested dismissal of the revision. The respondents did not oppose this request. The court, accepting the applicants' submission that the cause of action no longer survived, dismissed the revision application.
Issues considered
- Whether a revision application can be dismissed when the underlying cause of action has been extinguished by the sale of the disputed property.
Subjects
- revision
- civil procedure
- cause of action
- quash decree
- property sale
- eviction
Judgment
30-CRA-424-2011 (C).docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 424 OF 2011
Govind Shridhar Mahajani … Applicants
(Since deceased) Through LRs
A. Anuradha Govind Mahajani & Ors.
Versus
Sudhir Suresh Mantri & Anr. … Respondents
——————
Mr. Venkatesh A. Shastry (Through V.C.) for the Applicants.
Mr. Sanjeev P. Kadam, Sr. Advocate for the Respondents.
——————
Coram : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
Date : 16th September 2026.
PER COURT :
1. Heard Mr. Venkatesh Shastry, learned Advocate for the Applicants and
Mr. Sanjeev Kadam, learned Senior Advocate for the Respondents.
2. By the present Application, the Applicants have sought for the
following substantive relief:
“(A) That this Honourable Court be pleased to quash and set
aside the Judgment & decree dated 18th December, 2010
passed by the learned District Judge, Satara in Regular Civil
Appeal no. 115 of 2000 and further dismiss the Regular Civil
Appeal no. 115 of 2000.”
osk 1 of 2
30-CRA-424-2011 (C).docx
3. Mr. Venkatesh Shastry, learned Advocate for the Applicants, submits
that during the pendency of this Revision Application, the applicant, who was
seeking eviction of the Respondents on the ground of bona fide requirement,
have disposed of the suit premises by selling the same to the third party. He
therefore submits that the cause of action, as referred to in the present
proceedings, does not survive and further the Applicants are not interested in
pursuing this proceedings. He therefore submits that this Application be
disposed of.
4. Mr. Sanjeev Kadam, learned Senior Advocate for the Respondents, does
not oppose the submission made by Mr. Venkatesh Shastry, learned Advocate
for the Applicants.
5. In view of the statements made by Mr. Venkatesh Shastry, learned
Advocate for the Applicants, this Revision Application No. 424 of 2011 is
dismissed.
[ ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. ]
Digitally signed
by OMKAR
OMKAR SHIVAHAR
SHIVAHAR KUMBHAKARN
KUMBHAKARN Date:
2026.09.16
19:29:46 +0530
osk 2 of 2
Checking your session…