3.CRA.672-08 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.672 OF 2008 Jalindar Nivrutti Aute. ..Applicant. Versus Smt.Sumanbai Jalindar Aute. ..Respondent. ... Mr.P.G. Chavan, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr.G.N. Salunke & Umesh Kurunkar, Advocate for the Respondent. ... CORAM : A.R. JOSHI, J. DATED : MARCH 05, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard rival submissions for some time and matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. The present revision applicant (orig.deffendant) challenges the order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division,Barshi, District–Solapur. By the said order, application below Exhibit­13 preferred by the appellant(orig.defendant) was rejected by the trial Court. By filing the said application below Exhibit­13, the appellant(orig.defendant) pleaded that either in view of the provisions of the Order 7 Rule 11 or Order 9 Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code, the Special Civil Suit No.31 of 3.CRA.672-08 2 2008 could not have been entertained by the Court. This is more so in view of the earlier dismissal of the Regular Civil Suit No.151 of 1990. The said earlier Regular Civil Suit was filed by the present respondent­wife for maintenance before the Civil Judge, Junior Division,Barshi, District­Solapur. In the said Regular Civil Suit, interim maintenance was allowed and was admittedly paid. When that Regular Civil Suit came up for hearing on 8.6.1998, the then plaintiff(present respondent) was absent, so also her Advocate was absent. Application for adjournment was not filed. Hence, the said suit was dismissed for default without any cost. 3. After dismissal of the said Suit, admittedly for non appearance of the then plaintiff­wife, another suit i.e. Special Civil Suit No. 31 of 2008 came to be filed. In the said subsequent Special Civil Suit, what is prayed is the maintenance for three years preceding to filing of the said Special Civil Suit. Allegations made against the present applicant(orig.defendant) were same as alleged in the earlier Regular Civil Suit that he deserted her and not maintained her. It appears that this is considered as the same cause of action by the learned Advocate for the applicant(orig.defendant) and presumably on the same 3.CRA.672-08 3 premise application below Exhibit­13 was filed which was rejected by the learned trial Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Barshi, and rightly so in the opinion of this Court. This is more so, in view of the import of Order 9 Rule 9 and also the import of Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code. 4. What is significant is, whether the subsequent suit is filed on the same cause of action, is to be ascertained and in the opinion of this Court it is rightly held in the impugned order that the cause of action i.e. non payment of the maintenance amount is not the same as what is claimed in the Special Civil Suit is the maintenance for the preceding three years from filing of the Suit in the year, 2008 and it was not prayed, infact, it could not have been prayed in the earlier Regular Civil Suit which ended in the year, 1998 due to absence of the then plaintiff­wife. 5. In view of the above, there is nothing to interfere with the impugned order in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court and as such the present Civil Revision Application is accordingly dismissed. (A.R. JOSHI, J.)