MR. SHAILESH S/O. NIHALA SINGHversusMR. RATNESH S/O. NIHALA SINGH

                                                                            20-CRA-445-2026.DOC




                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 445 OF 2026


                     Shailesh S/o Nihala Singh                                   ..Applicant
                           Versus
                     Ratnesh Nihala Singh                                     …Respondent

                     Mr. Ajit Anekar (through VC) with Avanti Kher, Sanskruti More and
                            Madhuri Negi, i/b Auris Legal, for the Applicant.

                                                 CORAM:          N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                                                 DATE :          18th AUGUST 2026


                     ORDER:

                     1.    Heard Mr. Ajit Anekar, the learned Counsel for the Applicant.

                     2.    This Revision Application is directed against an order dated 23 rd

                     June 2026 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court in Notice of

                     Motion No. 1577 of 2025, whereby the said Notice of Motion taken out

                     by the Applicant-Defendant for rejection of the Plaint under the
        Digitally
        signed by
        SAINATH
SAINATH SANJAY
SANJAY BODKHE
BODKHE Date:
                     provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
        2026.08.24
        19:27:51
        +0530
                     (“the Code”), came to be dismissed.

                     3.    The Respondent-Plaintiff is the brother of the Applicant. The

                     substance of the claim of the Plaintiff is that, the property situated at

                     Bomji Shivaji Estate, Village Koile Kalyan Pipeline, Santacruz (E),

                     Mumbai 400 055, comprises of a bungalow divided in two parts (the

                     ARS                                   1/4
                                                        20-CRA-445-2026.DOC

suit property). The Plaintiff, Defendant and their mother have resided in

the suit property along with the deceased father of the Plaintiff and the

Defendant. The suit property is a tenanted premises. The Plaintiff and

Defendant have been in the occupation of two separate portions of the

suit property. There is a common passage for the ingress and egress of

both the Plaintiff and Defendant.

4.    The Defendant had allegedly changed the lock to the gate

installed in the common passage and thereby obstructed the

unrestricted access of the Plaintiff to the portion of the suit property

which is in the occupation of the Plaintiff. Hence, the suit for

declaration that the Defendant has no right to cause such obstruction

and for injunction to restrain the Defendant from causing such

obstruction.

5.    The Applicant filed the Notice of Motion seeking rejection of the

Plaint on the ground that the City Civil Court has no subject matter

jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the suit as the dispute as to the

tenancy rights are within the exclusive province of the jurisdiction of

the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai. Secondly, the suit is bad for non-

rejoinder of necessary parties.

6.    The learned Judge, City Civil Court dismissed the Notice of

Motion observing inter alia that the suit was essentially for injunction

and not in respect of the determination of the tenancy rights.


ARS                                   2/4
                                                         20-CRA-445-2026.DOC

7.    Mr. Anekar, the learned Counsel for the Applicant, submitted that

the learned Judge, City Civil Court did not read the Plaint in a

meaningful manner. Inviting the attention of the Court to paragraph 2

of the Plaint, Mr Anekar would submit that the Plaintiff has

categorically asserted that the heirs of the deceased tenant who have

allegedly been residing in the suit property since the lifetime of the

deceased-tenant are entitled to declare themselves as joint tenants.

8.    However, the Plaintiff has, by resorting to clever drafting,

refrained from seeking a declaration in that regard. Thus from the very

statements in the Plaint itself, the suit is barred by the provisions of the

Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882.

9.    I am afraid to accede to the aforesaid submission. Indeed the

Plaint is required to be read in a meaningful and not formalistic manner.

However, the Plaint must be read in such fashion as a whole. It is

impermissible to dissect a particular sentence in the Plaint and read it

torn out of context. As noted above, the substratum of the Plaintiff’s

claim is that, there was an arrangement between the Plaintiff and

Defendant that each would occupy a portion of the suit premises; he has

been residing in a portion of the suit premises; there is a common

access and the Defendant has changed the lock and thereby obstructed

the unrestricted access of the Plaintiff to the portion of the suit property

which is in the occupation of the Plaintiff. The reference to the historical


ARS                                    3/4
                                                         20-CRA-445-2026.DOC

fact that the Plaintiff and Defendant had been occupying the suit

property during the lifetime of their father does not alter the nature of

the suit.

10.    Mr. Anekar attempted to salvage the position by canvassing a

submission that there is no material to show that the Plaintiff is in

possession of a portion of the suit property. That is essentially a matter

which touches upon the merits of the claim.

11.    At the stage of consideration of an application for rejection of the

Plaint, it is trite, only averments in the Plaint are required to be

considered along with the documents annexed with the Plaint. The

contention that the Plaintiff is not in the actual occupation of a portion

of the suit property, which is in the nature of defence of the Applicant, is

not at all germane for the determination of the prayer for rejection of

the Plaint.

12.    For the forgoing reasons, there is no such infirmity in the

impugned order as would warrant exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

13.    The Application thus stands dismissed.



                                             [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




ARS                                    4/4