{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.167 OF 2009 Arun Pundlik Barhate APPLICANT VERSUS Sonibai Ramchandra @ Kapoorchand Sancheti and others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.Amol S.Sawant, Advocate for applicant Mr.R.M.Deshmukh, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 6 ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 16th April 2010 PER COURT: 1. The applicant, who is original defendant in Regular Civil Suit No.22/2009, pending on the file of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Amalner, has assailed the order dated 23.06.2009 passed below Exhibit-16 in the said suit. 2. Heard learned counsel for applicant and respondents. 3. It appears that the respondents, original plaintiffs, have filed Regular Civil Suit No.22/2009 before the Civil Judge, {2} Junior Division, Amalner for cancellation of sale deed and for declaration that the sale deed dated 30.09.1999 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs, present respondents and also for perpetual injunction. It appears that after service of suit summons, the applicant, defendant appeared in the said suit and contested the same by filing written statement so also say to the interim injunction application on 15.06.2009. It further appears that on 18.06.2009, the defendant moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code at Exhibit-16 contending that the suit is barred under the law of estoppal, as provided under the Indian Evidence Act and prayed for rejection of the plaint. After giving notice to the other side, vide order dated 23.06.2009, passed below Exhibit-16, the said application came to be rejected and the said order is impugned in the present civil revision application. 4. Considering the rival submissions, the only question requires consideration is that whether the application (Exhibit-16) covers under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Civil Procedure Code or not, which reads thus - “d. Whether the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;” 5, On bare reading of Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Civil Procedure Code, it is clear that if the plaint is barred by the {3} provisions of law (special statute) of which the civil court cannot take cognizance then the plaint to be rejected by the court in which the same is presented. So far as the application (Exhibit-16) is concerned, the same is moved by the present applicant on the ground that there is bar of law of estoppal, as earlier certain promises were given by the present respondents to the applicant and hence they cannot claim the relief as prayed in the said suit. The lower court has rightly observed in para No.2 and 3 of the impugned order that it is a matter of evidence and this issue to be decided after offering opportunity to both the sides and under these provisions the plaint cannot be rejected. As the impugned order is well founded, no interference is called for by this Court. 6. In the result, the civil revision application, which is sans merits, stands rejected. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/cra167-09