Bombay High Court

RAVINDRA SHANKAR MOHIREversusMANILAL NANJI SHAH AND ORS.

Decided: 2 February 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: MADHAV JAMDAR

Holding

The order rejecting the plaint dated 16 September 2022 under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC has attained finality and is not overridden by consent terms that do not bind the applicant.

Summary

The applicant, Ravindra Shankar Mohire, filed three civil revision applications challenging the dismissal of his delay‑condonation applications and the effect of consent terms entered in appeals of inter‑pleader suits. He argued that the consent terms were executed only between the original plaintiff and certain defendants without notice to him, and therefore should not bind him, and that the order of 16 September 2022 rejecting his plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC had not been set aside. The respondents contended that the consent terms were valid between the parties who signed them and that the order rejecting the plaint had attained finality, especially since earlier revision applications challenging that order were dismissed for non‑prosecution. The court observed that the consent terms were limited to the parties who executed them and could not bind the applicant, and that the order rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) remained effective and final. Consequently, the three civil revision applications were disposed of, leaving the rejection of the plaint in force.

Issues considered

Whether consent terms executed between certain parties bind a non‑signatory applicant in an inter‑pleader suit.
Whether the order rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC remains effective despite the disposal of appeals on the basis of consent terms.
Whether dismissal of civil revision applications for non‑prosecution confers finality on the order rejecting the plaint.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order VII Rule 11(d)

Subjects

Inter Pleader Suit
Consent Terms
Order VII Rule 11(d)
Civil Revision
Delay Condonation
Finality of Order
Small Causes Court
Appeal

Judgment

5-CRA-595-2025+.DOC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.595 OF 2025
Ravindra Shankar Mohire …Applicant
Versus
Sushila Manilal Shah & Ors. …Respondents

WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.604 OF 2025

Ravindra Shankar Mohire …Applicant
Versus
Sushila Manilal Shah & Ors. …Respondents

WITH
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.605 OF 2025

Ravindra Shankar Mohire …Applicant
Versus
Manilal Nanji Shah & Ors. …Respondents

Ms. Vaishnavi Gujarathi a/w. Mr. Sanket Dorugade, for the
Applicant.
Mr. Bhavik Lalan a/w. Ms. Kiran Dubey, for the Respondent Nos.2
and 3.

CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED : 2nd FEBRUARY 2026
P. C.:

1. Heard Ms. Gujarathi, learned Counsel appearing for the

Applicant and Mr. Lalan, learned Counsel appearing for the

Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

Page 1
Sonali
5-CRA-595-2025+.DOC

2. In all these Civil Revision Applications the challenge is to the

orders passed in Marji Application filed in respective Appeals. The

details of the same are set out herein below:

Civil Revision Marji No. Appeal No. Suit No. Old CRA No.
Applicaiton
Civil Revision Marji Application Appeal No.288 of Suit No.897 of Civil Revision
Applicaiton No.97 of 2025 2022 2021 Applicaiton
No.604 of 2025 No.288 of 2023
Civil Revision Marji Application Appeal No.287 of Suit No.898 of Civil Revision
Applicaiton No.96 of 2025 2022 2021 Applicaiton
No.595 of 2025 No.292 of 2023
Civil Revision Marji Application Appeal No.286 of Suit No.899 of Civil Revision
Applicaiton No.98 of 2025 2022 2021 Applicaiton
No.605 of 2025 No.289 of 2023

3. In effect, the orders challenged are dismissal of the delay

condonation applications in filing applications seeking setting

aside the orders which are passed in respective Appeals on the

basis of the Consent Terms.

4. It is the submission of Ms. Gujarathi, learned Counsel

appearing for the Applicant that the suit filed is Inter Pleader Suit

and without giving notice to the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the

said Appeal, the Consent Terms were executed between the

original Plaintiff and the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e. original

Defendant Nos.1 and 2. She submits that the Respondent Nos.3

and 4 in said Appeal i.e. original Defendant Nos.3 and 4 were not

Page 2
Sonali
5-CRA-595-2025+.DOC

given notice and the order was passed in terms of the Consent

Terms and said Appeal was withdrawn against the Respondent

Nos.3 and 4. She submits that in any case, the order passed in

Appeal on the basis of the Consent Terms is not binding on the

present Applicant. She further submits that in all these respective

Appeals, the challenge is to the order dated 16th September 2022

passed by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court, by which the

plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) and the said order passed in all the above

three proceedings i.e. Inter Pleader Suit has not been set aside. She

further submits that the Appeal which is filed challenging the said

order of rejection of plaint in the said Inter Pleader Suits is

disposed of in terms of the Consent Terms, however, the order

rejecting plaint has not been set aside by the learned Appellate

Court and even the said Consent Terms also do not contain any

such terms. She therefore, submits that the order which will

operate even after disposal of Appeal in terms of the Consent

Terms is rejection of the plaint.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Lalan, learned Counsel appearing for

the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that the contention raised

Page 3
Sonali
5-CRA-595-2025+.DOC

that no notice was given to the Applicant of said Consent Terms is

not correct. However, Mr. Lalan, learned Counsel appearing for the

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 fairly submits that the contentions raised

by Ms. Gujarathi, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant that

the plaint is rejected by order dated 16 th September 2022 and the

said order has not been set aside in the Appeal and therefore, even

if the Appeal is disposed of as against the Respondent Nos.1 and 2

in terms of the Consent Terms, still the order which has attained

finality is the order dated 16 th September 2022 by which entire

plaint has been rejected by exercising power under Order VII, Rule

11(d) of the CPC.

6. In fact, he pointed out that the said order dated 16 th

September 2022 has been challenged by filing Civil Revision

Application No.282 of 2023, Civil Revision Application No.292 of

2023 and Civil Revision Application No.289 of 2023 and all these

Civil Revision Applications have been dismissed for non-

prosecution and therefore, the said order dated 16 th September

2022 rejecting the plaint has attained finality. Thus, he submits

that the final order in the all these Inter Pleader Suits in spite of

Page 4
Sonali
5-CRA-595-2025+.DOC

order passed in respective Appeals in terms of the Consent Terms is

the order of rejection of plaint.

7. Mr. Lalan, learned Counsel appearing for some of the

Respondents in Civil Revision Application No.282 of 2023, Civil

Revision Application No.292 of 2023 and Civil Revision Application

No.289 of 2023 submits that as the same are dismissed for non-

prosecution the order rejecting plaint in Inter Pleader Suit has

attained finality.

8. In any case, admittedly, Consent Terms were filed only

between the Respondent No.1(original Plaintiff) and the

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 (original Defendant Nos.1 and 2) and

therefore, it is very clear that the said order dated 14 th June 2023

passed by the learned Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court

in respective Appeals in terms of the Consent Terms is not binding

on the Applicant.

9. The above observation is made without prejudice to the

contentions raised by Ms. Gujarathi, learned Counsel appearing for

the Applicant that even the said Consent Terms are also not

Page 5
Sonali
5-CRA-595-2025+.DOC

relevant as the order rejecting plaint dated 16 th September 2022

has not been set aside by the learned Appellate Court and

therefore, ultimate order passed in said Inter Pleader Suit is

rejection of the plaint.

10. Thus, with these clarifications, Civil Revision Application

No.595 of 2025, Civil Revision Application No.604 of 2025 and

Civil Revision Application No.605 of 2025 are disposed of.

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]

Digitally
signed by
SONALI
SONALI MILIND
MILIND PATIL
PATIL Date:
2026.02.03
18:16:27
+0530

Page 6
Sonali

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…