1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Civil Revision Application No.32 of 2010 (Farhat Jabeen w/o Late Iqbal Haidar Ali Khan and others v. Dr. Kaneez Ayesha w/o Mohammad Burhan Arab and another) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri M.G. Sarda, Advocate for Applicants. Shri S.C. Mehadia, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Coram : K.U. Chandiwal, J. Dated : 21st June, 2010 1. Heard finally. 2. In a suit seeking decree for declaration, partition and separate possession, an application under Order Rule 7, Order 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code came to be moved by the defendants. 3. The learned Trial Judge, on analyzing the factual details and in the light of the settled law, by his order dated 10-9-2009, did not approve the contentions raised by the defendants and 2 consequently the defendants have challenged the said order in this revision. 4. The scope in revision in terms of the provisions of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code is limited. It is the duty of the party aggrieved to point out the illegality or irregularity in the order on the face of the record. 5. Having gone through the said order of the learned Trial Judge, I find that the learned Trial Judge has considered all the contentions raised by the parties. The point of limitation in lodging the proceedings could not be considered on prima facie evidence and the learned Trial Court naturally did not read the defence, as the plaintiff had denied her signature either on the terms or on the Hiba between the parties. The test is, whether the averments made in the plaint taken together in entirety and accepted, a decree could be passed. In such circumstances, the order passed by the learned Trial Judge cannot be said to be perverse or the same is not in tune with the legal frame. The civil revision application is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. In view of the dismissal of the civil revision 3 application, Civil Application No.14 of 2010 does not survive and the same is disposed of accordingly. (K.U. Chandiwal), Judge. pdl.