IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(arising out of SLP(C) No. 16809/2025)
BABASAHEB RAMDAS SHIROLE & ORS. ..... APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
ROHIT ENTERPRISES & ORS. ..... RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appellants are the plaintiffs in Special Civil Suit No.
126/2023 on the file of the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Sangamner. The said suit was filed for declaration of
title, permanent injunction and cancellation of the sale deed dated
20.07.2013. While so, the defendants in the said suit filed an
application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
19081, seeking rejection of the plaint. The trial Court dismissed
the same by order dated 08.04.2024.
Aggrieved thereby, the defendants in the suit filed Civil
Revision Application No. 124/2024 before the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench. By judgment dated
09.04.2025, the High Court allowed the revision and Special Civil
Suit No. 126/2023 on the file of the learned 2 nd Joint Civil Judge
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Deepak Guglani
(Senior Division), Sangamner, stood rejected.
Date: 2025.11.18
[Link] IST
Reason:
1 “CPC”, for short
1
Assailing the said judgment, the plaintiffs in the suit are
before this Court.
Perusal of the judgment under challenge reflects that the
High Court was of the opinion that the suit was barred by
limitation. This was on the premise that, by way of the suit filed
in the year 2023 the plaintiffs wanted to invalidate a sale deed
executed a decade earlier. Further, the High Court was of the
opinion that sufficient pleadings had not been made in the plaint
with regard to the allegation of fraud.
Insofar as the second aspect is concerned, we are of the
considered opinion that it was not for the High Court to consider
the merits of the case as per the averments in the plaint.
As regards the first aspect, it is well settled that
limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and unless the same
is patently and unequivocally clear, it cannot form a ground under
Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for non-suiting a plaintiff. In the
case on hand, perusal of the plaint indicates that the plaintiffs
claimed that the cause of action arose in October 2023, when
defendant No. 1 started quarreling with them for the first time,
showing his true colors by trying to grab the suit properties and
interfering with their peaceful possession over the same.
In the light of this averment, the High Court clearly erred
in jumping to the conclusion that there was a delay of 10 years on
the part of the plaintiffs in assailing the sale deed executed in
the year 2013. The High Court lost sight of the fact that it was
the plaintiffs’ case that the said sale deed was only a sham and
was coupled with a development agreement executed on the same day.
2
These were issues that required to be examined on evidence
and could not have been summarily rejected by the High Court in
exercise of jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
The impugned judgment/order is, accordingly, set aside and
the appeal is allowed, restoring Special Civil Suit No. 126/2023 to
the file of the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Sangamner.
The trial Court may endeavour to expedite the trial and
hearing in the suit, given the fact that proceedings therein have
already been delayed.
Needless to state, the trial Court shall consider the case on
its own merits in accordance with law and on the strength of the
evidence produced before it, uninfluenced by the observations made
by the High Court and this Court.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
......................J.
(SANJAY KUMAR)
......................J.
(ALOK ARADHE)
NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 17, 2025.
3
ITEM NO.41 COURT NO.13 SECTION IX-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 16809/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 09-04-2025
in CRA No. 124/2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay]
BABASAHEB RAMDAS SHIROLE & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
ROHIT ENTERPRISES & ORS. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 146755/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT, IA No. 146756/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA
No. 186338/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 17-11-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Arvind S. Avhad, AOR
Mr. Rishabh Singh, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :
Mr. Nishant R. Katneshwarkar, Adv.
Mr. Somiran Sharma, AOR
Mr. Anuj Fulpagar, Adv.
Ms. Snigdha Shresth, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel, the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The impugned judgment/order is set aside and the appeal is
allowed, restoring Special Civil Suit No. 126/2023 to the file of
the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangamner, in
terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(DEEPAK GUGLANI) (PREETI SAXENA)
AR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
(signed order is placed on the file)
