Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay

Order Date: 02 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Applicants: Multiple parties including Wallace Flour Mills Co. Ltd (original Defendant No.1), Laxmi Charitable Trust, Samir Chinai, Sudhir Mehtra, Rohit Adalja, Mathuradas Vissanji Female Education Trust, Smt. Arati H. Vissanji, Miss Ameeta A. Parpia, Shalin S. Divatia, and the deceased Hemant P. Vissanji and Arvind Dalal. They filed Civil Revision Application No.57 of 2020 (and No.18 of 2020 for Wallace Flour Mills) challenging the order dated 7 Oct 2019 of the City Civil Court, Borivali Division, which had rejected Notice of Motion Nos.3338 of 2018 and 3346 of 2018 filed under Order VII Rule 11(a), (c) and (d) of the CPC.
  • Respondents: Laxmi Estate Co‑op. Housing Society Ltd., Andheri Varma Nagar Co‑op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd., Amita Mandir Co‑op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd., the Wallace Four Mill Company Ltd., Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, The Charity Commissioner, Mumbai, Ajit C. Shah, and Virendra G. Bhatt.
  • Underlying Suit: L.C. Suit No.3712 of 2017 filed by three cooperative housing societies (the plaintiffs) seeking declaration of joint ownership of amenity area and recreation ground (RG) on the layout, conveyance of RG on Sub‑Plots D and E, and entitlement to FSI advantage of 1,936.20 sq.mtrs. The plaintiffs relied on alleged provisions of Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 (MOFA) and Rule 9 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Rules, 1964 (MOF Rules).
  • Grounds for the motions: The defendants argued that the plaint disclosed no cause of action, the court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction, the suit was undervalued, barred by res judicata, barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, and barred by limitation. They also contended that the cited Rule 9 sub‑rules (2) and (3) never existed in the MOF Rules.
  • Counsel: Senior Advocate V.R. Dhond (for applicants in CRA/57/2020 and for respondents 4‑7 & 10‑13 in CRA/18/2020), Akshay Patil (for Wallace Flour Mills and for respondent 4 in CRA/57/2020), Pradeep Thorat (for respondents 1 & 3), Suraj Swami (for respondent 2), Santosh Mali (for respondent 14).
  • Judicial Findings:
  • The court examined the plaint’s averments and found that the plaintiffs admitted that Plots D and E were transferred to the trusts in 1962‑63, i.e., before MOFA became applicable on 10 Feb 1964, negating any statutory promoter obligations.
  • The plaint quoted fictitious sub‑rules (2) and (3) of Rule 9 of the MOF Rules; the actual Rule 9 contains only provisions on time‑bound conveyance by promoters and does not provide for conveyance of common areas.
  • The sanctioned layout plan (dated 16 Jan 1967, amended 3 July 1967) and subsequent building plans showed that RG area of 11,270 sq.yards was to be maintained as a recreation ground, but the condition applied only to the specific plot, not to the entire layout as alleged by the plaintiffs.
  • The plaintiffs’ claim that FSI calculations were based on the whole layout (A‑F) was contradicted by individual building plan approvals for Plots A, B and C, each with separate 15 % RG deductions.
  • The court held that the plaint therefore disclosed no cause of action, was based on non‑existent statutory provisions, and contained falsified averments; consequently, it was a vexatious suit.
  • The court referenced Apex Court judgments (Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanushali, Kum. Geetha v. Nanjundaswamy, etc.) to support the application of Order VII Rule 11 to dismiss a suit lacking a genuine cause of action.

Final Outcome

  • The order dated 7 Oct 2019 of the City Civil Court rejecting the motions is set aside.
  • Both motions (Notice of Motion Nos.3338 of 2018 and 3346 of 2018) are allowed.
  • L.C. Suit No.3712 of 2017 is rejected under Order VII Rule 11 and dismissed.
  • No order as to costs is made.
  • The interim applications filed alongside the revision applications are disposed of as they no longer survive.

Topics: Court Proceedings, Property Law, Order VII Rule 11