SMT. RAJNI TUKARAM PHUGEversusSMT. SANGITA PANDURANG GAWLI AND ORS.

2026:BHC-AS:8762

                                                                          26 cra 73 of 2026.doc

                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                           CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.73 OF 2026

            Rajni Tukaram Phuge                              ...    Applicant
                  versus
            Sangita Pandurang Gawli and Ors.                 …      Respondents

            Mr. Sagar Kursija, for Applicant.

                               CORAM:       N.J.JAMADAR, J.

                               DATE :       17 FEBRUARY 2026

            P.C.

            1.     Heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant.

            2.     This Revision Application is directed against an order dated 10

            November 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Pune, in SCS

            No.979 of 2025, whereby the application preferred by the Applicant –

            Defendant No.2 for rejection of the plaint under the provisions of Order VII

            Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, came to be rejected.

            3.     Respondent Nos.1 to 3 – Plaintiffs, have instituted a suit against the

            Applicant – Defendant No.2 and their father – Ramchandra Shankar Kokane

            (D1) for declaration, partition and possession of their 1/5th share each in the

            suit properties and for declaration that the gift deeds purportedly executed by

            Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant No.2, on 22 May 2024, thereby gifting

            the suit properties in favour of Defendant No.2, are null and void and do not

            bind the shares of the Plaintiffs in the suit properties, and the consequential


            SSP                                                                 1/3
                                                                  26 cra 73 of 2026.doc

reliefs.

4.     Defendant No.2 filed an application for rejection of the plaint

contending, inter alia, that, there was no cause of action and the plaint

appeared to be manifestly vexatious and meritless. By resorting to clever

drafting, the Plaintiffs had created an illusion of a cause of action.           The

Plaintiffs resisted the application.

5.     By the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge rejected the application

opining that the case for rejection of the plaint was not made out either under

clause (a) or clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII of the Code.

6.     Mr. Sagar Kursija, learned Counsel for the Applicant, made an

endeavour to persuade the Court to hold that the consideration by the learned

Civil Judge is inadequate and infirm. The Plaintiffs have, according to Mr.

Kursija, no clear right to sue. As the Defendant No.1 has executed registered

gift deeds in favour of Defendant No.2 in exercise of the incident of

ownership, the Plaintiffs cannot assail those gifts. An attempt was made by

Mr. Kursija to drive home the point that the suit is essentially not for partition.

7.     I am afraid to accede to any of the submissions of Mr. Kursija. First and

foremost, and, as rightly held by the learned Civil Judge, at the stage of an

application for rejection of the plaint, only the averments in the plaint and the

documents annexed thereto, are required to be considered.                    From a

meaningful reading of the plaint as a whole, it would not be possible to draw


SSP                                                                    2/3
                                                                                         26 cra 73 of 2026.doc

                      an inference that there is no cause of action. The facts are few and simple.

                      The relations inter se the Plaintiffs and Defendant Nos.1 and 2, are not in

                      dispute. The character of the properties, as asserted by the Plaintiffs in the

                      plaint, is ancestral. Defendant No.1 allegedly got the suit properties in the

                      partition effected in the year 1982. In view of the development in law, the

                      Plaintiffs are the coparceners. The right of the Plaintiffs to seek their share in

                      the suit properties, thus, can hardly be questioned.

                      8.       Moreover, the Plaintiffs have approached the Court under an year of the

                      execution of the gift deed by the Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant No.2.

                      That indeed furnishes a cause of action for the suit. Thus, there is neither any

                      jurisdictional error nor material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the

                      trial Court, so as to warrant interference in the exercise of revisional

                      jurisdiction.

                      9.       The Civil Revision Application, thus, stands dismissed.




                                                                           ( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )




                      SSP                                                                     3/3



Signed by: S.S.Phadke
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 20/02/2026 18:17:05