Ram S. Kulkarni

Order - Status 5: Sequeira IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2082 OF 2016 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Court's or Judge's Orders order or Directions and Registrar's Orders Mr.Shriram Kulkarni for the Petitioner. None for Respondents. CORAM : N.M.Jamdar, J. Thursday, 22 September 2016. P.C. : Place the Petition on board on 17 October 2016. If the Petitioner makes an application for adjournment, the learned Civil Judge, Daund, Pune will grant the same. (N.M.Jamdar, J.)

Order - Status 7: dik IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2082 OF 2016 Raghunath Sahebrao Konde ...Petitioner vs Ramakant Dattatraya Deshpande & Ors. ...Respondents ..... Mr S.S.Kulkarni for the Petitioner None for the Respondents CORAM : N. M. JAMDAR, J. 17 OCTOBER, 2016 P.C. : None for the Respondents. S.O. to next CMIS date i.e. 2 March 2017. The Petitioner will give notice of the next date to the Respondents and file an affidavit of service. Earlier liberty to continue till the adjourned date. ..... ( N.M.JAMDAR J. )

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2082 OF 2016 Raghunath Sahebrao Konde .. Petitioner V/s. Ramakant Dattatraya Deshpande ... Respondent Mr.Shriram Kulkarni a/w Ms.Madhura Deshmukh for the petitioner CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATED : MAY 2, 2018 P.C. : 1 Heard. 2 By this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner plaintiff is challenging the order dated 19.11.2015 passed by 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune rejecting Petitioner's Application below Exhibit 53 in Regular Civil Suit No.193 of 2010 for amendment of plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 3 In the present Writ Petition, Petitioner plaintiff initially filed Regular Civil Suit No.193 of 2010 for an order of injunction restraining Respondent original defendant from disturbing his possession in respect of suit property as described in paragraph 1 of the plaint. In that Suit, Respondent defendant filed written statement as well as counter claim. Thereafter Petitioner plaintiff filed Application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on 25.10.2012 for allowing him to carry out amendment and claimed specific performance of agreement dated 06.08.1996 on payment of court fees and also for joining Sou.Chinga alias Kunda Suresh Deshpande as defendant no.5. 4 Bare reading of the Application filed by the plaintiff for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 dated 25.10.2012 shows that though the Suit was filed in 2010, amendment Application was filed on the basis of document executed in the year 1996. Not only, that plaintiff wanted to carry out amendment by converting suit for injunction in Suit for specific performance. 5 It is to be noted that even Apex Court in the matter of North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur vs. Bhagwan Das (D) by Lrs., 2008(8) SCC 511 held that the principles governing the question of granting or disallowing the amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are well settled. Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 postulates amendments of pleadings at any time of the proceedings. All amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy two conditions (a) of not working any injustice to the other side; and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real question of controversy between the parties. Amendment should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleadings had been originally corrected, but the amendment would cause him an injury which could not be Mohite 2/3 compensated in costs. In the case in hand, the original Plaintiff – Petitioner filed simplicitor suit for injunction inspite of having entire knowledge about the earlier agreement dated 06.08.1996 and by way of amendment he wants to convert the same for specific performance of the said agreement dated 06.08.1996. On delay a reference can be made to the Apex Court judgment in the matter of Van Vibhag Karamchari Griha Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit v. Ramesh Chander (2010) 14 SCC 596. 6 Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the well reasoned order. 7 Hence, Writ Petition stands rejected. 8 At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner may be permitted to make appropriate application before the Trial Court for joining Sou.Chinga alias Kunda Suresh Deshpande as defendant no.5. 9 Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, liberty granted to the petitioner to make application in the Trial Court for joining Sou.Chinga alias Kunda Suresh Deshpande as party defendant no.5 in Suit within 8 weeks from today. 10 If such application is filed, Trial Court to decide the same on its own merits, after hearing both the sides. ( K.K. TATED, J. )

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7413 OF 2016 Shakuntala Vithal Bhujbal And Ors ....Petitioner V/S Gargi Packaging Industries Through Shri. Rajan Bachav And Ors ....Respondent Shri Shriram S. Kulkarni For Petitioner Mrs V S Nimbalkar, AGP R.no. 2 For Respondent CORAM : R.M. SAVANT., J DATE : 15th February, 2017 P.C. : Mentioned out of turn, stand over to 06/03/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7413 OF 2016 Shakuntala Vithal Bhujbal and others ..Petitioners Versus Gargi Packaging Industries Through Shri. Rajan Anandrao Bachav and others ..Respondents Mr. S. S. Kulkarni for the Petitioners. Mrs. V. S. Nimbalkar, AGP for the Respondent No.2. CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 20th MARCH, 2017 P.C. 1 Heard Mr. S. S. Kulkarni, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners. 2 Issue notice to the Respondents, returnable on 17.04.2017. In addition to service of notice through Court, the advocate for the Petitioners shall serve a private notice by Registered Post A.D. and/or by Courier service and/or by hand delivery on the Respondents and shall file affidavit of service before the returnable date. 3 The Respondent No.1 is directed to maintain statusquo as on date in respect of the land in question. 4 Leave to amend so as to substitute Exh.H with the correct Exhibit. Amendment to be carried out within one week. [R.M.SAVANT, J]

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7413 OF 2016 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1442 OF 2017 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 7413 OF 2016 Shakuntala Vithal Bhujbal & Ors. ….. Petitioners VERSUS Gargi Packaging Industries & Ors. ….. Respondents Mr.Shriram S. Kulkarni for the Petitioners. Kiran Varma, i/b. Mr.Kishore Gaikwad for the Respondent no. 1. Mr.J. A.Madane, A.G.P. for the State – Respondent nos. 2 to 4. CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J. DATE : 16th JANUARY, 2018 P.C . Learned A.G.P. states that his clients will file affidavit in reply and would also raise an objection to the maintainability of this petition on the ground that an alternate remedy exist against the impugned order passed by the Tahsildar. Affidavit in reply shall be filed within two weeks from today. It is made clear that no further extension would be granted. A copy of the affidavit in reply shall be served upon the petitioners' advocate simultaneously. Rejoinder if any, shall be filed within one week from the date of service of affidavit in reply and shall serve a copy thereof upon the respondents' advocates simultaneously. The petitioners are also directed to find out whether any alternate remedy exists against the order passed under the provisions of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. S.O. to 13th February,2018 . [R.D. DHANUKA, J.] 1/1

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7413 OF 2016 Shakuntala Vithal Bhujbal And Ors ....Petitioner V/S Gargi Packaging Industries Through Shri. Rajan ....Respondent Bachav And Ors CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J DATE : 13th February, 2018 P.C. : Due to paucity of time Stand Over to 13/03/2018. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7413 OF 2016 Shakuntala Vithal Bhujbal And Ors ....Petitioner V/S Gargi Packaging Industries Through Shri. Rajan ....Respondent Bachav And Ors Swapnil Mhatre i/b Shriram S. Kulkarni For Petitioner S.H.Kankal AGP For R.no. 2 Kishore Gaikwad For R. No.1 For Respondent CORAM : SMT. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J DATE : 23rd August, 2018 P.C. : Stand Over to 06/09/2018.Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 20: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7413 OF 2016 Shakuntala Vithal Bhujbal And Ors ....Petitioner V/S Gargi Packaging Industries Through Shri. Rajan ....Respondent Bachav And Ors CORAM : SMT. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J DATE : 6th September, 2018 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned Stand Over to 27/09/2018. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 22: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7413 OF 2016 Shakuntala Vithal Bhujbal And Ors ....Petitioner V/S Gargi Packaging Industries Through Shri. Rajan ....Respondent Bachav And Ors Shriram S. Kulkarni For Petitioner P.J. Gavnane AGP For R.no. 2 Suhas Adhav i/b Kishore Gaikwad For R. No.1 CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J DATE : 27th September, 2018 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the respondents no. 1 & 3, Stand over to 19/10/2018. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 24: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7413 OF 2016 Shakuntala Vithal Bhujbal And Ors ....Petitioner V/S Gargi Packaging Industries Through Shri. Rajan ....Respondent Bachav And Ors CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J DATE : 19th October, 2018 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned for 19/11/2018 alongwith connected matters.Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. Stand over to 19/11/2018. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 26: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7413 OF 2016 Shakuntala Vithal Bhujbal And Ors ....Petitioner V/S Gargi Packaging Industries Through Shri. Rajan ....Respondent Bachav And Ors CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J DATE : 18th April, 2019 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned for 24/06/2019. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 28: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7413 OF 2016 Shakuntala Vithal Bhujbal & Ors. …..Petitioners. Vs. Gargi Packaging Industries & Ors. …..Respondents. Mr. Pravartak Khatavkar I/by S.S. Kulkarni for the Petitioners. Mr. C.D. Mali AGP, for the Respondent No. 2State. CORAM : A. S. GADKARI, J. DATE : 24th JUNE, 2019. P.C.: Stand over to 15th July, 2019. 2 Adinterim relief, if any, to continue till then. (A.S. GADKARI, J.)

Order - Status 30: Tandle IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7413 OF 2016 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1442 OF 2017 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 7413 OF 2016 Shakuntala Vithal Bhujbal and Ors. ... Petitioners. Versus Gargi Packaging Industries and Ors. ... Respondents. . . . . . . Mr. S. S. Kulkarni for Petitioners. Mr. Suhas Adhav I/b Kishor Gaikwad for Respondent No.1. Mr. C. D. Mali, AGP for Respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4. . . . . . . CORAM : A. S. GADKARI, J. DATE : 15TH JULY, 2019 P. C. : By the present petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners had impugned Order dated 05.02.2016 passed by the Agricultural Land Tribunal/Tahsildar, Dhindori, i.e. respondent no. 2 herein, thereby rejecting the application preferred by the petitioners under Section 63(1A) of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (For short "MTAL Act"). At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 raised a preliminary objection and submitted that, against the impugned order, there is substantive alternate remedy available with the petitioners either before the Collector under Section 74 or under Section 76 before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal of the MTAL Act and without availing the said remedy, the petitioners have preferred present petition directly before this Court. Mr. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions of the representative of the petitioners, who is personally present in the Court, submitted that, the petitioners will avail substantive alternate remedy available under the said Act. He submitted that, in view thereof, they may be granted leave to withdraw the present petition with liberty to adopt alternate remedy. Leave and liberty granted. Writ Petition is disposed off with aforesaid liberty. Adinterim relief granted by order dated 20th March 2017, to remain in force for three weeks from today. It is needless to mention that, this Court has not adjudicated upon the issue involved in the petition and the petition is disposed off on the basis of the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for respondent no.1. In view of the disposal of the main petition Civil Application No. 1442 of 2017 does not survive and is accordingly stands disposed off. (A. S. GADKARI, J.) 2/2

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 93 OF 2012 IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 122 OF 2010 Anil Narayan Joshi & Ors. ..Applicants versus The Secretary, Urban Development Department & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Shriram Kulkarni for Applicants. Mr. A. B. Vagyani - Assistant Government Pleader for State - Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Mr. Mandar Limaye for Respondent No. 6. CORAM : D. D. SINHA AND SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. 18 July 2012 P.C. : Heard the learned counsel for the applicants, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State - respondent nos. 1 to 5 and the learned counsel for the respondent no. 6. Civil application is moved by the applicants seeking direction to the respondents Corporation as well as the State Government to take appropriate action against illegal construction which has come up on Survey No. 285 at Kolshet, Patilpada Thane and Survey Nos. 139 and 271 at Mauje Kavesar, Thane. Counsel for the applicants has submitted that so far as Survey No. 285 is concerned, respondent Corporation as being a Planning Authority be directed to take action for removal of unauthorized construction / encroachment; whereas construction which has come up on Survey No. 139 and 271, the State Government has jurisdiction to deal with this aspect, therefore State may be directed to do so. The learned counsel for the respondent Corporation has submitted that the construction, if any, which has come up on Survey No. 285 and if the same is unauthorized and illegal, appropriate action in accordance with law shall be taken, at the earliest. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that the construction, if any, which has come up on Survey Nos. 139 and 271 is concerned, if the same is unauthorized and illegal, appropriate action with the help of the respondent Corporation in accordance with law and procedure applicable in this regard shall be taken, at the earliest. 2/3 In view of the above referred facts particularly in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the Corporation as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader, it is evident that if the construction on the concerned survey numbers is unauthorized and illegal, appropriate action would be taken by the respective Planning Authorities. Hence, no further action so far as the civil application is concerned is necessary. Civil application is disposed of accordingly. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, J.) Chandka

Order - Status 4: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO. 12814 OF 2019 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's order Registrar's orders CORAM : V. R. Kachare REGISTRAR (JUDL-II) Date : 18/06/2019 None present Three weeks time is granted to remove office objections. sd/- REGISTRAR (JUDL-II)

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 475 OF 2019 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Court's or Judge's orders orders or directions and Registrar's orders Shri S.S. Kulkarni for applicants. CORAM : M.S.KARNIK, J. DATE : 30th SEPTEMBER, 2019 P.C. Heard learned counsel for the applicants. The applicants to serve the respondents by Advocate's notice along with the copy of this order informing respondents that the application would be heard on 14/11/2019. It is made clear that an endeavour would be made to dispose of the application finally on 14/11/2019 considering the narrow controversy involved in this application. In the event, the respondents fail to appear despite service of Advocate's notice, the application would be heard on its own merits even in the absence of the respondents. 29.doc The applicants to file an affidavit of service before the returnable date. Stand over to 14/11/2019. (M.S.KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 9: Dond IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 475 OF 2019 Shri Inderpalsingh Rajendrasingh Chadha & Anr. ..Applicants Vs Shri Baljit Ramlal Manchanda & Ors ..Respondents Mr. Swapnil Mhatre i/b S.S. Kulkarni for Applicants. Mr. S.S. Shah i/b Prashant Darandale for respondent Nos.1 to 8. CORAM : A.S.GADKARI, J. DATE : 28th November 2019. P.C.: 1] It is submitted that, the Advocate on record for applicants has filed a leave note. 2] In view thereof, at the request of learned counsel for the applicants, stand over to 21st January 2020. (A.S.GADKARI, J.)

Order - Status 11: Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 475 OF 2019 Inderpalsingh Rajendrasingh Chadha & anr. .Applicants Vs. P. C. Baljit Ramlal Manchanda & ors. .Respondents None for the Applicants Mr. Surel S. Shah i/b. Mr. Prashant Darandale, Advocate, for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 8 CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. DATE : 13.01.2020 . None appears for the Applicants. The aforesaid Application has been circulated by the learned counsel for the Respondents and hence, it appears that learned counsel for the Applicants is not present. In order to give one opportunity to the Applicants, stand over to 27.01.2020 . Till then, ad-interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate. (REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 475 OF 2019 Shri. Inderpalsingh Rajendrasingh Chadha And Anr ....Applicant V/S Shri. Baljit Ramlal Manchanda And Ors ....Respondent Shriram S. Kulkarni For Applicant Prashant Darandale Res. No.1 To 8 CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J DATE : 27th January, 2020 P.C. : In view of the joint request made by the learned Counsel for the parties, stand over to 04/02/2020 . Ad-interim order, if any, to continue till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 475 OF 2019 Shri. Inderpalsingh Rajendrasingh Chadha And Anr ....Applicant V/S Shri. Baljit Ramlal Manchanda And Ors ....Respondent Swapnil Mhatre i/b Shriram S. Kulkarni For Applicant Prashant Darandale For Respondent Nos. 1 to 8 CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J DATE : 4th February, 2020 P.C. : Stand over to 14/02/2020 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 19: Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 475 OF 2019 Inderpalsingh Rajendrasingh Chadha & anr. .Applicants Vs. Baljit Ramlal Manchanda & ors. .Respondents Mr. S. S. Kulkarni, Advocate, for the Applicants Mr. S. S. Shah i/b. Mr. P. Darandale, Advocate, for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 8 CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. DATE : 14.02.2020 P. C. . Heard learned counsel for the parties. By this Application, the Applicants have impugned the order dated 08.02.2019 passed by the learned 5th Jt. C. J. S. D., Nashik below Exhs. 54 & 55 in R. C. S. No. 420 of 2010, by which the Applicants' Application ( Original Defendant Nos. 9 & 10 ) seeking rejection of the plaint under O. VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( for short 'C. P. C.' ) was rejected. Learned counsel for the Applicants submitted that the Partition Deed entered into between the Respondent No. 1 and the Respondent No. 8 is of 1982 and that pursuant to the said Deed, measurements were carried out in the year 1987. He submits that under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, right to sue accrued on the date when the Applicants learnt about the alleged bogus Partition Deed i. e. when measurements were done in 1987. He submits that the present suit is filed after 28 years and as such, is barred by the law of limitation. He further submits that even the cause of action disclosed in the plaint is vague. According to the learned counsel, the plaint does not reveal any cause of action and is clearly barred by the law of limitation and as such, the Applicants' Application, seeking rejection of the plaint under O. VII, Rule 11 of the C. P. C. ought to have been allowed. Learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 8 ( Original Plaintiffs ) opposes the Application and submits that no interference is warranted in the impugned order. He submits that the plaint clearly discloses the cause of action and as such, the learned Judge has rightly rejected the Applicants' Application seeking rejection of the plaint under O. VII, Rule 11 of the C. P. C.. Learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 8 states that it is the case of the Applicants that the Respondent No. 8 committed fraud on the Respondent No. 1, by entering into a Partition Deed in 1982, and carried out measurements thereafter, by practising fraud on the Respondents and others. He submits that admittedly, the Applicants are the co-owners of the property in question and had not signed the Partition Deed allegedly entered into between the Respondent No. 1 and the Respondent No. 8, in 1982. He submits that the Respondents ( Original Plaintiffs ) filed the suit in 2010, only after learning that the Respondent No. 8 had entered his name in the revenue records, thus, giving rise to cause of action. Perused the papers. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 are the Original Plaintiffs, who have filed R. C. S. No. 420 of 2010 in the Court of the learned C. J. S. D. , Nashik, for a declaration that the Partition Deed dated 25.09.1982 entered into between the Respondent No. 1 and the Respondent No. 8 be declared illegal. The Applicants ( Original Defendants ) appeared in the said suit and filed their Written Statement. It appears that the aforesaid Applicants filed two Applications i. e. Exh. 54 and Exh. 55 in the aforesaid suit and sought rejection of the plaint under O. VII, Rule 11 of the C. P. C. on the premise that the suit was barred by limitation. A perusal of the plaint prima facie shows that the issue of limitation, is a mixed question of facts and law. No infirmity can be found in the impugned order dated 08.02.2019 passed by the learned 5th Jt. C. J. S. D., Nashik below Exhs. 54 & 55 in R. C. S. No. 420 of 2010 and as such, the Application being devoid of merit, is dismissed. All contentions of all parties are kept open with respect to the issue of limitation for being decided at the stage of final disposal of the suit. Accordingly, the Application is disposed of. (REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)