23 June 2025 Civil Suits >> Civil & Consumer Law  

The Bombay High Court recently in Rohit & Another v/s Pramod Jayawant Chavan & Others set aside an order dated June 28, 2007, which had dismissed Suit No. 3325 of 2005 on the grounds of abuse of process of law. The appeal, filed by the original minor plaintiffs through their guardian, sought to declare them co-owners of a property (allegedly Hindu Undivided Family property) and prevent its attachment or sale due to a loan taken by one of the defendants.

The learned Single Judge had dismissed the suit at the interim relief stage (Notice of Motion No. 3907 of 2005), observing that the plaintiffs had no right, title, or interest in the suit property and that the suit was merely an attempt to delay loan recovery.

The appellants argued that the plaint clearly asserted the property as HUF property, making them co-owners, and alleged collusion and fabrication of documents by defendant No. 1 with loan providers (defendants 8 to 15) to illegally mortgage the property without original title deeds. They contended that these critical averments, which required a trial and evidence, were not considered by the Single Judge before dismissing the suit at the threshold.

Respondent No. 1 argued that mere averments of rights or fraud in the plaint were insufficient to establish a prima facie case or challenge recovery proceedings.

The Division Bench of the High Court observed that the Single Judge's dismissal, presumably under inherent jurisdiction (Section 151 CPC), did not consider the parameters of Order VII Rule 11 CPC or adequately examine the plaint's averments. The Court found that crucial issues raised, such as the property being HUF property and allegations of fraudulent mortgage, required deeper consideration and potentially evidence, rather than summary dismissal at an interlocutory stage. The Court also noted the absence of consideration for the circumstances of defendant No. 1 and the plaintiffs' mother living separately, which could be relevant.

The High Court concluded that the dismissal of the suit at the threshold, without resolving contentious factual disputes, was unjustified. It therefore set aside the impugned order, restoring Suit No. 3325 of 2005 and Notice of Motion No. 3907 of 2005 to the file of the learned Single Judge for fresh adjudication in accordance with the law.