1 C.R.A.476/2010 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.476 OF 2010 Shri Rajaram M. Buchde & Ors. ...Applicants. v. Smt. Kantabai B. Jambhulkar and Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.Vivek Salunke i/by P.B.Shah, advs. For the Applicants. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : AUGUST 25, 2010 P.C. 1 Original defendants have filed this revision application against rejection of their application to dismiss the suit on the basis of certain admissions made by the original plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are the sisters of the defendant no.1. Defendant nos.2 to 8 are the other relatives. Suit was for partition and separate possession of the joint family property. On behalf of the defendants, an application Ex.103 was filed seeking clarification as to whether the plaintiffs would rely on the affidavit of the plaintiff no.1 or plaintiff no.2 in examination-in-chief as both the affidavits were identical. In that application, it was stated that suit was false and illegal and was not tenable. In the first paragraph of the reply, application was strongly opposed. However, in the second paragraph, it was mentioned that paragraph 1 of application was correct. 2 C.R.A.476/2010 Similarly, in the affidavit of the plaintiff no.1 in reply to that application it was stated that suit was against law, false and fraudulent and application filed by the plaintiff was against law, false and fraudulent and when the suit was pending for cross-examination, such mischievous application was made and was liable to be dismissed. In fact, this was the affidavit-in-reply to the application filed by the defendants and not by the plaintiffs. From the language, it appears that the plaintiffs denied the allegations made in the application filed by the defendants. In paragraph two, it was mentioned that the contents of the paragraph 1 of the application was generally correct. On the basis of this, prayer was made by the defendants that the suit should be dismissed on the basis of admissions. The trial Court rejected the application. On perusal of the application made by the defendants, it is clear that purpose of that application was only to get clarification as to whether affidavit of plaintiff no.1 or plaintiff no.2 was to be used as examination-in-chief and there was no other purpose in that application. Certain allegations were made. Reply was that the application was mischievous. It appears that while giving reply, typographical mistakes were committed and capital of the same was tried to be made by the defendants. In fact, the plaintiffs strongly contested their contention that 3 C.R.A.476/2010 the suit is liable to be dismissed. Nowhere there was any admission by the plaintiffs that the suit property was not joint family property or that the partition had previously taken place and that they were given shares and were in possession of the same. There was no admission on facts which gave cause for filing the suit. Thus, there was no admission on the basis of which suit could be dismissed under Order 12 of the C.P.C. I find no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. 2 Therefore, the revision application stands dismissed with cost of Rs.1,000/- to be deposited with State Legal Aid Authority. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)