Bombay High Court
SUNIL SHIVAJI PAGAREversusDAVID DANIAL PAGARE AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- N JAMADAR
Holding
The revision is dismissed because the counter‑claim is not barred; the cause of action arose on 10 September 2024 and is distinct from the earlier withdrawn suit.
Summary
The applicant, Sunil Shivaji Pagare, sought a revision of an order dated 4 October 2025 that rejected his application to have the respondents' counter‑claim dismissed. The applicant argued that the counter‑claim was barred because he had previously filed a suit (RCS No.11 of 2019) which was withdrawn without liberty to institute a fresh suit, and that the same cause of action was being relitigated. The respondents' counter‑claim, however, alleged a distinct cause of action arising on 10 September 2024 when they allegedly obstructed the plaintiff’s access to the suit property. The Joint Civil Judge held that only the pleadings and annexed documents need be considered at the stage of a rejection application and found the plaintiff’s averments insufficient to show the counter‑claim was barred. Consequently, the judge correctly rejected the applicant’s prayer for rejection of the counter‑claim. The High Court affirmed this view, dismissing the civil revision application.
Issues considered
- Whether the counter‑claim filed by the respondents is barred by the earlier withdrawn suit of the applicant.
- Whether the cause of action for the counter‑claim arose after the earlier suit and is therefore independent.
- Whether the revision application challenging the rejection of the counter‑claim is maintainable.
Subjects
- civil procedure
- counter‑claim
- revision
- cause of action
- withdrawn suit
- rejection of plaint
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:8445
31 cra 96 of 2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.96 OF 2026
Sunil Shivaji Pagare ... Applicant
versus
David Danial Pagare and Ors. … Respondents
Mr. Narayan Rokade with Mr. Siddharth Ghodke, Mr. Ramchandra Wagh, for
Applicant.
CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 17 FEBRUARY 2026
P.C.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant.
2. The challenge in this Application is to an order dated 4 October 2025,
whereby the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Yeola has rejected the
application for rejection of the counter-claim preferred by the Respondents –
Defendants in RCS No.534 of 2024.
3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant –
Defendant No.1 / Plaintiff in the counter-claim had filed RCS No.11 of 2019
and the said suit was withdrawn without liberty to institute a fresh suit and,
yet, in the suit instituted by the Applicant – Plaintiff, the Defendants have filed
a counter-claim on the same cause of action.
4. Learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division has recorded that the
previous suit was for partition and permanent injunction and the instant suit is
for declaration and permanent injunction. The parties to the suit are also not
SSP 1/2
31 cra 96 of 2026.doc
same. Moreover, the cause of action for the counter-claim, as pleaded in
paragraph No.9 is that, on 10 September 2024, the Defendants to the
counter-claim obstructed the Plaintiffs in Counter-claim from entering into the
suit property and thereby obstructed their access.
5. It is trite, at the stage of consideration of the prayer for rejection of the
plaint, only the averments and the documents annexed to it are required to be
read in a meaningful manner. In view of the clear and categorical assertion
that the cause of action arose on 10 September 2024 on account of
obstruction caused to the Plaintiffs in the Counter-claim, the learned Joint Civil
Judge, Junior Division was justified in rejecting the application for rejection of
the counter-claim.
6. Hence, the Civil Revision Application stands dismissed.
( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )
SSP 2/2
Signed by: S.S.Phadke
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 18/02/2026 17:31:24
Checking your session…