The Bombay High Court has clarified that a plaint seeking injunction against threats of dispossession cannot be summarily rejected merely because land consolidation proceedings are pending. This ruling reinforces the principle that independent civil remedies for possession and peaceful enjoyment remain viable even amid administrative processes.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The respondents, owners of land bearing Gt No. 82 in Aurangabad, filed a civil suit seeking declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction against the applicants. They alleged that the applicants, adjoining landowners, had threatened to dispossess them on 14.06.2025 and were obstructing their peaceful possession. The land in question was originally surveyed as Survey Nos. 15 and 16, later consolidated under the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947. The respondents claim the area recorded post-consolidation differs from the original survey, but no final order has been passed by the competent authority to modify the record.
Procedural History
- 2025: Regular Civil Suit No. 185/2025 filed by respondents for declaration and injunction
- 2025: Applicants filed Exh. 13 under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC seeking rejection of plaint on grounds of no cause of action, limitation, and bar under Section 36A of the Act
- 03.10.2025: Trial Court rejected the application to reject the plaint
- 2025: Civil Revision Application No. 231 of 2025 filed by applicants challenging the Trial Court’s order
Relief Sought
The respondents sought a declaration of their ownership and a perpetual injunction restraining the applicants from disturbing their possession. They did not challenge any order passed under the consolidation Act, nor did they seek modification of the consolidation scheme.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a plaint seeking injunction for wrongful threat of dispossession can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC solely because land consolidation proceedings are pending and Section 36A of the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 may restrict civil court jurisdiction over revenue records.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The applicants contended that the suit was barred under Section 36A of the Act, which prohibits civil courts from entertaining suits challenging consolidation schemes. They argued that the cause of action was illusory, cleverly drafted to circumvent the statutory bar, and that the relief sought was premature since the competent authority had not finalized the consolidation scheme. Reliance was placed on Dahiben v. Arvindbhai, Ravi Bhaskar Wattamwar, and Manisha v. Dinendraprasad to argue that suits challenging land records or transactions linked to consolidation are non-maintainable.
For the Respondent
The respondents countered that they were not challenging any order passed under the Act, nor seeking alteration of the consolidation scheme. They asserted that their claim for injunction was based on an independent cause of action - threatened dispossession on 14.06.2025 - which falls squarely within the civil court’s jurisdiction. They emphasized that Order VII Rule 11 is an extraordinary remedy and should not be invoked to deprive a plaintiff of trial merely because factual disputes exist.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the relief sought and distinguished between challenging a consolidation order and asserting a right to peaceful possession. It held that Section 36A bars suits directly attacking the validity or implementation of a consolidation scheme, but does not extend to suits seeking injunction against unlawful interference with possession. The Court emphasized that the plaint clearly pleaded an overt act - threats on 14.06.2025 - which constitutes a standalone cause of action for injunction.
"The alleged overt act of the appellants on 14.06.2025 is a cause of action for praying relief of perpetual injunction, which is independent one. I am of the considered view that this particular relief cannot be said to be barred by any provisions of law."
The Court further held that the absence of specific details regarding alleged illegal transactions did not render the plaint defective at the threshold stage. Limitation, the Court noted, is a mixed question of law and fact requiring evidence and cannot be decided on a plaint rejection application. The Court relied on Central Bank of India v. Prabha Jain to affirm that Order VII Rule 11 must be applied sparingly and only where the plaint is patently unsustainable.
The judgments cited by the applicants were distinguished: Dahiben involved direct challenge to consolidation; Ravi Bhaskar involved long delay and laches; Manisha involved challenge to mutation entries barred under the Land Revenue Code; and Dattu Appa Patil concerned challenge to administrative orders after decades. None involved a claim for injunction based on recent threats to possession.
The Verdict
The revision application was dismissed. The Court held that a claim for injunction based on recent threats to possession is maintainable even if land consolidation proceedings are pending, and Order VII Rule 11 CPC cannot be invoked to reject such a plaint unless the cause of action is wholly illusory or barred by clear statutory prohibition.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Injunction Claims Are Independent of Revenue Proceedings
- Practitioners must argue that claims for injunction against trespass, threats, or obstruction are distinct from challenges to revenue records or consolidation schemes
- Even if land title is under administrative review, peaceful possession can be protected through civil injunction
- Courts must not conflate jurisdictional bars on revenue matters with civil remedies for possession
Order VII Rule 11 CPC Is Not a Shortcut to Avoid Trial
- Plaintiffs need not plead every detail of title or transaction at the threshold stage
- Allegations of "clever drafting" or "illusory cause of action" are insufficient grounds for rejection without clear legal bar
- Courts must allow full trial where facts are disputed, especially where possession is at stake
Statutory Bars Must Be Explicitly Applicable
- Section 36A of the Maharashtra Consolidation Act does not bar all civil suits touching land records - it only bars suits challenging the scheme itself
- Lawyers must carefully distinguish between challenging an order and asserting a right to possession
- Where the suit seeks only injunctive relief based on recent unlawful acts, the bar under Section 36A does not apply
