Bombay High Court
BHAGWAN SHIVBA DEVKAR THRU. ITS G.P.A. HOLDER SHANKAR BHAGWAN DEVKAR AND ANOTHERversusJAIBAI DEVRAO HAKE AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- Rejected at Admission stage
Holding
The revision application is dismissed as there is no substantive ground regarding cause of action or limitation.
Summary
The petitioners filed a revision application alleging that the trial court erred in finding a cause of action and in treating the limitation issue as a mixed question of law and fact. They submitted a service affidavit showing that notices sent by speed post were returned, indicating refusal by respondents to accept them. The trial court had dismissed the petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, holding that a cause of action existed and that limitation was a mixed question. On review, the High Court affirmed the trial court’s reasoning, finding no merit in the revision grounds concerning cause of action or limitation. Consequently, the revision application was rejected and the pending civil application was disposed of.
Issues considered
- The existence of a cause of action for the petitioner's claim
- The applicability of the limitation period and whether it is a mixed question of law and fact
- The adequacy of service of notice by speed post
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order VII Rule 11
Subjects
- service of notice
- cause of action
- limitation period
- revision petition
- civil procedure
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:39754
cra96.26
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
25 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 96 OF 2026
Bhagwan Shivba Devkar Thru. Its G.p.a. Holder Shankar Bhagwan
Devkar And Another
VERSUS
Jaibai Devrao Hake And Others
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Govind B. Chate
…..
CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
DATED : 31st AUGUST, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. Learned advocate for the applicants has filed a service
affidavit stating that the notices were sent to the respondents by
speed post; however, the same were returned to the sender. He has
also filed the consignment tracking report along with the envelopes,
which indicate that the respondents refused to accept the notices.
The affidavit is taken on record and marked “X” for identification.
2. Learned advocate for the applicant further pointed out the
impugned order and submitted that no cause of action arose on the
date on which the earlier suit was withdrawn by filing a pursis.
3. On perusal of the plaint and the application filed under Order
VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C., it appears that the learned trial Court has
cra96.26
-2-
rightly concluded that a cause of action exists and that the question
of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact. There was no
substance in the application. Accordingly, the application came to be
rejected.
4. On perusal of the impugned order, this Court is of the view
that the existence of a cause of action and the issue of limitation
cannot be a ground for allowing the present revision application, as
rightly held by the learned trial Court in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the
impugned order. There is, therefore, no substance in the grounds of
objection raised by the applicant. Accordingly, the revision application
is rejected.
5. The pending civil application is also disposed of.
(SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.)
rlj/
Checking your session…