AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Applicant/original defendant impugns order dated 26th August 2025 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Solapur, below Exhibit-21 in RCS No. 608 of 2024, by which applicant’s prayer for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been declined.
Respondent/Plaintiff has instituted RCS No.608 of 2024 for declaration that he has acquired ownership of suit property by way of adverse possession. Applicant/Defendant No.1 appeared in suit and filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that plaintiff has already instituted Regular Civil Appeal No.1033 of 2014 seeking decree of partition and separate possession, wherein he has raised a claim of title for suit property. In that view of matter, plaintiff cannot claim title by way of adverse possession. Trial Court rejected the said application vide impugned order.
Mr. Deshpande, learned Advocate appearing for the applicant, submits that once the plaintiff has averred in the earlier suit that he is heir and entitled to partition of the suit property, he cannot thereafter assert title by way of adverse possession to the same property in the subsequent suit.
Admittedly, RCS No.1033 of 2014 filed by plaintiff seeking a decree of separate possession is pending. However, in present case, plaintiff has specifically pleaded that he is in the business of bricks, which has been continued since 2009 over suit property. It is trite that for deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, only pleadings in the plaint are relevant. The contentions in written statement cannot be looked into. From the plaint pleadings, it is not discernible that suit is barred by any provision of law.
So far as the issue of limitation is concerned, in fact, in present case it is a mixed question of law and fact. Unless parties go to trial and lead evidence, issue of limitation or adverse possession cannot be decided. From pleadings in RCS No.1033 of 2014, prima facie it is difficult to hold that suit of plaintiff is barred by law, therefore jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11(d) cannot be exercised.
Trial Court has recorded elaborate reasons in the impugned order and has rightly refused to entertain the prayer for rejection of the plaint. In this background, no error of jurisdiction is discernible in impugned order.
In result, Civil Revision Application has rejected.