VISHWANATH SAKHARAM CHURI Vs. VIJAY SAKHARAM CHURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revisionary jurisdiction of this Court under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Code) is invoked by the Applicants for setting up a challenge to order dtd. 21/8/2024 passed by the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai rejecting the application filed by the Applicants seeking rejection of the Plaint under provisions of Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the.

(2.) Mr. Sayed, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1/Plaintiff raises of preliminary objection about maintainability of the present application relying on judgment of this Court in Jasraj Lalaji Oswal Vs. Raziya Mehboob Patel,2020 (1) ABR 782. He would submit that Applicants have an alternate and equally efficacious remedy of filing of Revision under provisions of sub-Sec. (4) of Sec. 34 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (MRC Act).

(3.) Mr. Karande, the learned counsel appearing for Petitioner seeks to distinguish the judgment of this Court in Jasraj Lalaji Oswal (supra) submitting that the judgment is rendered after recording a finding that the application for rejection of Plaint, if allowed in the facts of that case, would have affected substantial rights of the parties therein. He would submit that in the present case, even if the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 (d) was to be allowed, the same would not affect substantive rights of Plaintiff. He would place reliance on judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Vishankumari Udaysingh Varma Thr. Her Dauther And Constituted Attorney Manju U. Varma and Anr. Vs. Vijaysingh Rajasingh Varma and Ors.,2016 (4) Mh. L.J. 805. in support of his contention that a suit challenging compromise decree is not maintainable and the proper remedy for aggrieved party is to file an application seeking recall of the order effecting compromise decree. Mr. Karande would accordingly submit that since the Plaintiff would still be left with a proper remedy of filing an application before the same learned Judge seeking recall of compromise decree, it cannot be stated that his substantive rights would be affected, if the application under Order VII Rule 11 (d) was to be allowed.