Gujarat High Court
Mavjibhai Tapubhai Kalavadiya vs Baldevbhai Lakshmanbhai Nandasana on 5 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/688/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 688 of 2025
==========================================================
MAVJIBHAI TAPUBHAI KALAVADIYA
Versus
BALDEVBHAI LAKSHMANBHAI NANDASANA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. D.P.KINARIWALA, ADVOCATE for
MR. AUM M KOTWAL(7320) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 05/12/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. This Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code', for short) is directed against the judgment and order passed below Exh.36 in Regular Civil Suit No.19 of 1990 whereby application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the Code filed by the defendant - revisionist has been rejected by the Principal Civil Judge, Jodia.
2.1 Learned advocate Mr.D.P.Kinariwala referred to the plaint and submitted that the suit that has been filed by the plaintiff for removal of encroachment. However, the plaintiff is missing the essential pleading as required under Order VII Rule 11 (a) of the Code. He would further submit that even the provisions of Order VI Rule 9 of the Code is not followed while filing the suit.
2.2 Learned advocate Mr.Kinariwala refers to the pleadings of the plaint and submitted that plaintiff intended to remove the encroachment upon land bearing Survey No.23 of Village: Kunad, Tal:Jodiya, Dist.Jamnagar, alleged to have been committed by the defendant but no Page 1 of 10 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Thu Dec 11 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:49:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/688/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/12/2025 undefined particulars are stated in the plaint that in what manner and in which way the defendant has encroached upon the land of the plaintiff. He would further submit that plaintiff was required to plead the effect of document in his pleading based upon which the plaint is premised. However, the plaint is totally silent which indicates that plaintiff has no real and substance cause of action.
2.3 Learned advocate Mr.Kinariwala also submits that in para:3 of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the Code the defendant specifically stated that measurement of the disputed lands were taken on 11.01.1973 by measurement-sheet No.422 which is produced vide Mark:3/1 which indicates that the defendant has encroached upon the land of the plaintiff yet the plaintiff has waited almost for 26 years to file the suit for recovery and possession of the suit land which is barred under the law as provided under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 but by clever drafting the plaintiff has filed the suit showing imaginary cause of action. Therefore, learned advocate Mr.Kinariwala submitted that learned Court below has committed serious error in rejecting the petition under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code instead of rejecting the plaint.
2.4 In the premise of aforesaid submissions, while referring and relying upon the judgment in the case of Jagdishbhai Haribhai Patel through Power of Attorney Shah Rajeshkumar Chandravadan vs. Lh of Deced. Ramanlal Shankarlal Patel reported in 2025 (4) GLH 171 and the judgment in the case of Arjun Thapar vs. Machhar Polymar Pvt Ltd. reported in 2025 (0) GUJHC 38565, learned advocate Mr.Kinariwala would submit to admit this petition and to issue notice to the other side.
Page 2 of 10 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Thu Dec 11 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:49:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/688/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/12/2025 undefined
3. At the outset, facts which are undisputed firstly need to be noticed.
3.1 It is undisputed that the plaintiff has filed the suit for removal of the encroachment alleged to have been made by the defendant from the disputed suit property and for obtaining the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. What could be noticed from the order under challenge is that the Regular Civil Suit filed by the plaintiff had been finally adjudicated and the suit was allowed in favour of plaintiff.
3.2 Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree drawn in favour of the plaintiff of the suit, the revisionist - defendant approached the District Court by filing appeal under Section 96 of the Code. The District Court has remanded the matter to trial Court and given chance to revisionist defendant to produce evidence in support of his defense and further directed that the proceedings of the suit be completed within three months from the date of judgment.
3.3 In the background of aforesaid factual terms, the defendant who has been given a chance by learned appellate Court to lead evidence came out with the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code to reject the plaint on various grounds which were not ground raised in the appeal which the revisionist appellant has filed previously instead.
3.4 At this juncture, I may refer to Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC reads as under:
"11. Rejection of plaint.
The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:Page 3 of 10 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Thu Dec 11 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:49:43 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/688/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/12/2025 undefined
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;
(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;
(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9:
Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.
3.5 In a recent judgment reported in 2025 Online SCC 2240 in the case of Karam Singh vs. Amarjit Singh and Others, in Para:15, the Apex Court has held as under:
"15. Before we assess the correctness of the impugned orders, we must remind ourselves of the basic principles governing rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. Here, the defendants seek rejection of plaint under clause (d) of Rule 11 (i.e., suit barred by law). Clause (d) makes it clear that while considering rejection of the plaint thereunder only the averments made in the plaint and nothing else is to be considered to find out whether the suit is barred by law. At this stage, the defense is not to be considered. Thus, whether the suit is barred by any law or not is to be determined on the basis of averments made in the plaint."
3.6 Thus, it is the statement made in the plaint which would be germane to be read while deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the CPC the averments made in the plaint are the only Page 4 of 10 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Thu Dec 11 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:49:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/688/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/12/2025 undefined material which could be considered and could alone has to be considered to find out whether suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by provisions of law or whether suit filed by the plaintiff does not have any cause of action. Thus, the plea of rejection of the plaint has to be determined on the basis of averments made in the plaint and any document which plaintiff has produced in support of his plaint.
3.7 The suit of the plaintiff is as simple as it could be. The plaintiff claimed that he is the owner of the survey No.23, which is an agricultural land. He further pleaded that the agricultural land of Survey No.24 belongs to the defendant - revisionist situated on the northern side of the land of Survey No.23. It is alleged that defendant has encroached upon agricultural field of the plaintiff being Survey No.23. The DILR measurement indicates that defendant has encroached upon the land of the plaintiff. It is further pleaded by the plaintiff that plaintiff was assured by the defendant - revisionist that he (the defendant) would remove his encroachment. But since he did not live with his promise, the plaintiff applied DILR Office for the measurement of the lands bearing Survey Nos.23 and 24. The measurement carried out by the DILR Office indicates that the defendant has encroached upon the agricultural land of the plaintiff being Survey No.23 to the extent of 0-19-62 Hec.Are. Sq mtr and since the plaintiff comes to know about the precise part of the encroachment by the defendant, he filed Civil Suit for removal of particular portion of the encroachment and also for the relief of obtaining declaration and permanent injunction. In support of the plaint, the plaintiff has produced document vide Mark 3/1 i.e. measurement-sheet carried out by the DILR in the year 1973.
Page 5 of 10 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Thu Dec 11 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:49:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/688/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/12/2025 undefined 3.8 Learned advocate Mr.Kinariwala, in this regard, submitted that in
view of Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1965, plaint is hopelessly barred by law of Limitation. Article 65 of the Act reads thus:
Article - 65 :
Description of Period of Time from which period begins to suit limitation run 65 For possession Twelve Years. When the possession of the of immovable defendant becomes adverse to the property or any plaintiff.
interest therein based on title.
3.9 The plain reading of the Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 indicates that the limitation for possession of the immovable property or any interest therein based on title is 12 years when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff title. In the present case, at no point of time, the defendant claims that he becomes the owner of the area belonging to the plaintiff which he has encroached, as measured by the DILR in tune of encroachment of 0-19-62 Hec. Are. Sq mtr. Therefore, the argument of learned advocate Mr.Kinariwala that the suit is hopelessly time barred more particularly by law of Limitation fails to sustain at its own leg. In fact, it is a continuous cause of action for the plaintiff to remove the encroachment from his land caused by the defendant until such encroachment is removed or it has been claimed to be the possession of the defendant with hostile title which is perfected by the principle of 'adverse' possession. The submission of learned advocate Mr.Kinariwala that there is blurred or imaginary cause of action, therefore, is totally misconceived and sheer misconception.Page 6 of 10 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Thu Dec 11 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:49:43 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/688/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/12/2025 undefined 3.10 Measurement made by the DILR and measurement-sheet prepared and produced on record of civil suit is unimpeachable documentary evidence. It is relevant to decide the cause of action set by the plaintiff. Thus in presence of this documentary evidence reliance pleaded upon specific rules of CPC by learned advocate Mr.Kinariwala is concerned, I see no reason that those provisions are attracted in the matter. In nutshell, what can be noticed is that whether it is an attempt on the part of the defendant to escape from the situation to remove unauthorised encroachment or not ? Firstly, he approached the first appellate Court against the judgment and decree of the trial Court directing him to remove encroachment, on the ground that he did not get any opportunity to lead the evidence. The learned first appellate Court, perhaps, under the sympathetically jurisdiction, remanded the matter for afresh hearing and directed the learned trial Court to decide afresh the suit within three months permitting the revisionist - defendant to lead the evidence. The revisionist - defendant may be apprehending adverse result again preferred an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code despite no such ground was available raised in the first appeal or in the written statement instead of leading the evidence in the suit to derail or distract the suit proceedings.
3.11 It appears that the revisionist - defendant's object is mala fide and oblique. He having encroached upon the land of Survey No.23 to the extent of 0-19-62 Hec. Are. Sq mtr., which is confirmed by the DILR in its measurement-sheet, which is produced in the trial of the suit, had filed frivolous litigation before the trial Court by filing an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC and having failed, thereoff, filed the present revision application to avoid adverse order. There is vexatious Page 7 of 10 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Thu Dec 11 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:49:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/688/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/12/2025 undefined and frivolous litigation by the revisionist - defendant, perhaps believing that the Court is the area where he can make on his own ride to avoid the adverse order by filing multiple litigation. The Court is already overburden and many litigants are waiting for their turn. In this situation, filing of such frivolous litigation choked the system and deprive real litigants from approaching for substantial justice. Such an attempt, therefore, requires to be curbed with harshness. At this juncture, I may refer to the observations of the Apex Court referred to in the case of Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik vs. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar reported in 2017 (5) SCC 496, more particularly paras:13 and 14 which read as under:
"13. This Court must view with disfavour any attempt by a litigant to abuse the process. The sanctity of the judicial process will be seriously eroded if such attempts are not dealt with firmly. A litigant who takes liberties with the truth or with the procedures of the Court should be left in no doubt about the consequences to follow. Others should not venture along the same path in the hope or on a misplaced expectation of judicial leniency. Exemplary costs are inevitable, and even necessary, in order to ensure that in litigation, as in the law which is practised in our country, there is no premium on the truth.
14. Courts across the legal system - this Court not being an exception - are choked with litigation. Frivolous and groundless filings constitute a serious menace to the administration of justice. They consume time and clog the infrastructure. Productive resources which should be deployed in the handling of genuine causes are dissipated in attending to cases filed only to benefit from delay, by prolonging dead issues and pursuing worthless causes. No litigant can have a vested interest in delay. Unfortunately, as the present case exemplifies, the process of dispensing justice is misused by the unscrupulous to the detriment of the legitimate. The present case is an illustration of how a simple issue has occupied the time of the courts and of how successive applications have been filed to prolong the inevitable. The person in whose favour the balance of justice lies has in the Page 8 of 10 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Thu Dec 11 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:49:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/688/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/12/2025 undefined process been left in the lurch by repeated attempts to revive a stale issue. This tendency can be curbed only if courts across the system adopt an institutional approach which penalizes such behavior. Liberal access to justice does not mean access to chaos and indiscipline. A strong message must be conveyed that courts of justice will not be allowed to be disrupted by litigative strategies designed to profit from the delays of the law. Unless remedial action is taken by all courts here and now our society will breed a legal culture based on evasion instead of abidance. It is the duty of every court to firmly deal with such situations. The imposition of exemplary costs is a necessary instrument which has to be deployed to weed out, as well as to prevent the filing of frivolous cases. It is only then that the courts can set apart time to resolve genuine causes and answer the concerns of those who are in need of justice. Imposition of real time costs is also necessary to ensure that access to courts is available to citizens with genuine grievances. Otherwise, the doors would be shut to legitimate causes simply by the weight of undeserving cases which flood the system. Such a situation cannot be allowed to come to pass. Hence it is not merely a matter of discretion but a duty and obligation cast upon all courts to ensure that the legal system is not exploited by those who use the forms of the law to defeat or delay justice. We commend all courts to deal with frivolous filings in the same manner"
3.12 This unfortunate case is exemplified as the litigant / revisionist with the mala fide intention misuse the process of dispensation of justice in unscrupulous way, which is detriment to the legitimate litigation. This case is illustration of how simple issue has occupied the time of the Court and how the applications have been filed to prolong litigation. Plaintiff, who is asking simple relief of removal of encroachment from his land as per measurement done by DILR, he has been dragged to multiple proceedings by the defendant of the suit.
4. In the aforesaid premise, the present Revision Application is Page 9 of 10 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Thu Dec 11 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:49:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/688/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/12/2025 undefined dismissed at admission stage, in limine, with cost of Rs.15,000/- in addition to cost of Rs.3,000/- already ordered by the court below. The entire cost amount shall be deposited by the defendant before the District Legal Service Aid, Jamnagar within a one week from today failing which the Chairman, District Legal Service Aid, Jamnagar is directed to issue recovery warrant in favour of the Collector, Jamnagar to recover the amount of cost.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) MISHRA AMIT V. Page 10 of 10 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Thu Dec 11 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 20 00:49:43 IST 2025