1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 831/2011 (Kanta Bajaj Mahesh Chellani VERSUS Mahesh Chellani Gordhandas Chellani & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri G.L. Bajaj, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : MARCH 30 , 2011 . Heard. The petitioner is the original defendant no.1. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff-respondent no.1 for specific performance of contract against the petitioner and one Sameer Roy. The petitioner was arrayed as the defendant no.1 to the suit. It was the case of the plaintiff that the defendant no.1-petitioner had agreed to execute a sale- deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff but, later on refused to execute the same and, hence, a direction be issued to the defendant no.1 to execute the sale- deed. The plaintiff prayed for refund of the earnest amount with interest in the alternative. The plaintiff further prayed for a decree for permanent injunction prohibiting the defendant no.1-petitioner, her agents, or any persons from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. It was the case of the plaintiff that the petitioner had failed to execute the same in his favour as he was desirous of executing a sale-deed in favour of defendant no.2- Sameer. 2 During the pendency of the proceedings, an application was filed by the petitioner-defendant no.1 for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was the case of the petitioner that the petitioner and the plaintiff were husband and wife and the plaintiff had concealed these material particulars in the plaint. The petitioner pleaded in the application that in view of the provisions of Section 7 and 8 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the trial Court did not have jurisdiction to try the suit filed by the plaintiff as the suit could be exclusively tried by the Family Court under the provisions of the Family Courts Act. The application was, however, rejected by the trial Court, by the impugned order dated 20.03.2010 on the ground that the rights of the plaintiff against the defendant no.2 were of civil nature and the plaintiff had sought a relief of permanent injunction against the defendant no.2 also. Shri Bajaj, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that on a combined reading of the provisions of Sections 7, 8 and 20 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the suit could have been tried only by the Family Court and, hence, the application filed by the petitioner ought to have been allowed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no relief was sought by the plaintiff against the defendant no.2 as observed by the trial Court and in such circumstances, the plaint was liable to be rejected for want of jurisdiction. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the plaint pleadings and the impugned order, it appears that though the reason recorded by the trial Court for rejecting the application filed by the petitioner may 3 be incorrect, the trial Court did not commit any error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. The provisions of Explanation (C) to Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 confer jurisdiction on the Family Court in regard to as suit or proceedings between the parties to a marriage with respect to the property of the parties or of either of them. The present suit was, however, a suit for specific performance of contract and a suit or proceedings in this case was not only between the parties to the marriage but, defendant no.2-Sameer Roy was also a party to the suit and it was categorically pleaded by the plaintiff in the suit that the petitioner-defendant no.1 had intended to execute a sale-deed of the suit property in favour of the defendant no.2 and, hence, she failed to perform her part of the contract. Looking to the pleadings in the plaint, it could be seen that the present suit was not of such a nature, which could be governed by Explanation (C) to Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. The trial Court, therefore, did not commit any error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE