VIKAS OBEROI AND ANR. THE DIRECTOR OF M/S OBEROI CONSTRUCTIONversusASHOK SHAH AND ORS.

2026:BHC-AS:8380

                                                                            30 cra 95 of 2026.doc

                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                           CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.95 OF 2026

            Vikas Oberio and Anr.                               ...   Applicants
                  versus
            Ashok Shah and Ors.                                 …     Respondents

            Mr. Yashesh Kamdar with Ms. Nupur Desai i/by IC Legal, for applicants.
            Mr. Sameer Bhalekar, for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
            Mr. Ashish Gatagat, for Respondent Nos.4 and 5.

                               CORAM:       N.J.JAMADAR, J.

                               DATE :       17 FEBRUARY 2026
            P.C.

            1.     Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

            2.     The challenge in this Petition is to an order dated 11 December 2025

            passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, whereby the Notice of Motion

            No.2664 of 2021 taken out by the Applicants – Defendants in S.C.Suit

            No.6900 of 2005, inter alia, to pass a decree on admission in relation to

            prayer clauses (a) to (d) and reject the prayer in relation to prayer clause (e)

            under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

            1908, came to be dismissed.

            3.     Learned Counsel for the Applicants submitted that, there are

            categorical admissions on behalf of the Defendants in regard to prayer in

            prayer clauses (a) to (d) and the Defendants are in a position to demonstrate

            that the prayer, in prayer clause (e), is wholly unsustainable, and, therefore, in



            SSP                                                                  1/4
                                                                       30 cra 95 of 2026.doc

that view of the matter, the trial Court could not have rejected the application

for decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code, so far as as

prayer clauses (a) to (d) and to reject the plaint in relation to prayer clause (e).

4.       Learned Judge, City Civil Court, was of the view that, in addition to the

prayers against the Petitioners, the Plaintiffs were also seeking relief of

permanent injunction against Defendant Nos.4 to 6 and, therefore, the

prayers cannot be granted at an interim stage.

5.       Ordinarily, a decree on admission is passed at the instance of a party,

in whose favour an admission is made either in pleadings or otherwise. In the

instant case, the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3, in addition to a decree on

admission in regard to prayer clauses (a) to (d), were seeking rejection of the

plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code.

6.       It is well recognized by a catena of decisions that it is impermissible to

dissect the averments in the plaint and reject a part of the plaint by invoking

the provisions contained in Order VII Rule 11 of the Code.                  A profitable

reference can be made to a three Judge Bench judgment of the Supreme

Court in the case of D. Ramachandran V/s. R.V.Janakiraman and Ors. 1

wherein the Supreme Court enunciated the law as under :

                “10.    On the other hand, Rule 11 of Order VII enjoins the
                Court to reject the plaint where it does not disclose a cause
                of action. There is no question of striking out any portion of

1    (1999) 3 SCC 267

SSP                                                                         2/4
                                                                       30 cra 95 of 2026.doc

                the pleading under this rule. The application filed by the
                first respondent in O.A. No. 36/97 is on the footing that the
                averments in the election petition did not contain the
                material facts giving rise to a triable issue or disclosing a
                cause of action. Laying stress upon the provisions of Order
                VII, Rule 11 (a), learned senior counsel for the first
                respondent took us through the entire election petition and
                submitted that the averments therein do not disclose a
                cause of action. On a reading of the petition, we do not find
                it possible to agree with him. The election petition as such
                does disclose a cause of action which if unrebutted could
                void the election and the provisions of O.VII R.11(a) C.P.C.
                can not therefore be invoked in this case. There is no merit
                in the contention that some of the allegations are bereft of
                material facts and as such do not disclose a cause of
                action. It is elementary that under O.VII R.11 (a) C.P.C., the
                Court can not dissect the pleading into several parts and
                consider whether each one of them discloses a cause of
                action. Under the rule, there can not be a partial rejection
                of the plaint or petition. See Roop Lal Sathi Versus
                Nachhattar Singh Gill2. We are satisfied that the election
                petition in this case could not have been rejected in limine
                without a trial.”                      (emphasis supplied)


7.       This position has been reiterated in the cases of Sejal Glass Limited

V/s. Navilan Merchants Private Limited3and Madhav Prasad Aggarwal

and Anr. V/s. Axis Bank Limited and Anr.4.

2    (1982) 3 SCC 487
3    (2018) 11 SCC 780
4    (2019) 7 SCC 158

SSP                                                                         3/4
                                                                                         30 cra 95 of 2026.doc

                      8.       The aforesaid being the position in law, the learned Judge, City Civil

                      Court was justified in dismissing the Notice of Motion.            The Application,

                      therefore, does not deserve to be entertained.

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




                                                                                ( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )




                      SSP                                                                     4/4



Signed by: S.S.Phadke
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 18/02/2026 14:56:09