VAIJANATH VENKATRAO JADHAVversusSUBHASH RAMRAO JADHAV AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:36380


                                                  1                     RA 146.2026.odt

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                       REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 146 OF 2025
                                           IN
                        CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No.64 OF 2024

                                         Vaijanath Venkatrao Jadhav
                                                VERSUS
                                  Subhash Ramrao Jadhav And Others
                                                   ...
                     Advocate for Applicant : Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar Senior
                                              Advocate i/b Mr P.B. Gapat
                     Advocate for Respondents : Mr. S.V. Natu
                                                   ...
                                      CORAM       : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
                                      Dated       : August 18, 2026

                     FINAL ORDER :-

                     1.    The applicant seeks review of the final order dated

                     9.6.2025 passed by this Court in Civil Revision Application

                     No.64 of 2024, whereby this Court rejected plaint in Special

                     Civil Suit No.146 of 2023 instituted before learned Civil Judge

                     Senior Division, Nanded.


                     2.    The applicant herein instituted Special Civil Suit No.146

                     of 2023 seeking decree of specific performance of agreement

                     to sale and perpetual injunction. Respondent filed application

                     under Order VII rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code contending

                     that plaintiff had previously instituted Regular Civil Suit

                     No.265 of 2021 claiming relief of perpetual injunction on the

                     basis of alleged agreement to sale. In that suit, he omitted to

                     seek relief of specific performance of contract.      As such,
                             2                     RA 146.2026.odt

present suit is barred by Order II Rule 2 of Civil Procedure

Code. The trial Court was pleased to reject the application

relying upon observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of

Gurubux Singh Vs. Bhooralal reported in AIR 1964

Supreme Court 1810.


3.    Respondents approached this Court against order

rejecting their application. This Court, upon hearing learned

advocate appearing for respective parties, ordered to reject the

plaint in Special Civil Suit No.146 of 2023, thereby allowing

the application Exhibit-47 filed by the Respondents.


4.    Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, learned Senior Advocate

appearing for Review Applicant submit that this Court missed

to consider the mandate of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India in case of Gurubux Singh wherein, it is held

that, in absence of pleadings of previous suit on record and

proof of contents thereof indicating identity of cause of action

in two suits, technical bar under Order II Rule 2 of Civil

Procedure Code would not operate. He would further submit

that mere availability of pleadings of previous suit would not

be sufficient to consider the Bar under Order II Rule 2 of Civil

Procedure Code unless plea raised in previous suit is proved

by leading evidence. Mr. Katneshwarkar would further submit
                              3                      RA 146.2026.odt

that, in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in

case of S. Valliammai and others Vs. S. Ramanathan

and another reported in (2026) INSC 372, bar under

Order II Rule 2 of Civil Procedure Code would not result in

rejection of plaint Under order VII Rule 11 (d) of the Code.


5.    Per contra, Mr. Natu, learned advocate appearing for

Respondents would submit that, this Court ordered rejection

of plaint after considering factual matrix and material placed

on record.   The series of Judgments are considered which

stipulates that plaint can be rejected if on face of pleadings and

material relied in plaint, bar under Order II Rule 2 is

discernible. He would urge that even assuming that in light of

judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in case of S.

Valliammai and others, some arguable case can be made

out, applicant cannot seek review on the basis of subsequent

judgment of Supreme Court.


6.    Having considered submissions advanced by learned

advocates appearing for respective parties, this Court finds

that order under review has been passed after considering

pleadings in Special Civil Suit No.146 of 2023 and Regular

Civil Suit No.265 of 2021, which were filed on the basis of one

and the same transaction. Previous suit i.e. Regular Civil Suit
                              4                     RA 146.2026.odt

No.265 of 2021 was filed for decree of perpetual injunction on

premise that applicant is in possession of suit property on the

basis of agreement to sale, but respondents were dealing with

property with third parties and disturbing possession of

applicant, whereas Special Civil Suit No.146 of 2023 has been

instituted seeking specific performance of agreement to sale.

This Court concluded that at the time of institution of Regular

Civil Suit No.265 of 2021, applicant had cause of action to

raise claim for specific performance, which he failed. Hence,

subsequent suit seeking performance of contract is barred by

Order II Rule 2 of Civil Procedure Code.             Pertinently,

pleadings in present suit specifically refers to pleadings in the

previous suit.   The applicant has not disputed contents of

pleadings in both the suits. In light of admitted position, this

Court analyzed pleadings in both the suits and arrived at

conclusion that present suit is barred by law. It is, therefore,

difficult to accede contention of applicant that the order under

review is passed in ignorance of pleadings in the suit.


7.    So far as reliance of applicant on exposition of law in

case of S. Valliammai and others is concerned, this Court finds

that Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered said Judgment on

16.4.2026. Further, explanation to sub-clause (2) of Order 47

prescribes that the decision on a question of law on which
                              5                    RA 146.2026.odt

judgment of the court is based has been reversed or modified

by subsequent decision of superior court; shall not be a ground

for review of such judgment. Therefore, assuming that the

judgment of Supreme Court in case of S. Valliammai and

others takes different view than law that stood as on the date

of passing the order under review, in light of aforesaid

explanation, which is re-iterated by Supreme Court in case of

Shanti Devi Vs State of Haryana and others reported in

(1999) 5 SCC 703, no good ground for review can be made

out.


8.     The Supreme Court in case of Lilly Thomas and

others Vs. Union of India and others reported in

(2000) 6 Supreme Court Cases 224 observed that power

of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake, but not

to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the

limits of the statute. The review cannot be treated like an

appeal in disguise. Mere possibility of two views on the subject

is not a ground for review.


9.     In this backdrop, this Court do not find any good ground

to invoke the powers under Order 47 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure

Code in factual matrix.
                           6                 RA 146.2026.odt

10.     In result, Review Application sans merit, hence

dismissed.


                               ( S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR )
                                           Judge
                               …

aaa/-