Gujarat High Court
Artiben Arvindbhai Patel vs Rajeshkumar Amratbhai Patel on 26 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/186/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 186 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 186 of 2025
==========================================================
ARTIBEN ARVINDBHAI PATEL
Versus
RAJESHKUMAR AMRATBHAI PATEL & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MIT S THAKKAR(11223) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR AJAY S JAGIRDAR(2688) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 26/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Admit. Learned advocate Mr. Ajay S. Jagirdar waives service of notice of admission on behalf of respondents- Caveator.
2. Heard learned advocate Ms. Megha Jani with learned advocate Mr. Mit S. Thakkar for the appellant and learned senior advocate Mr. Mehul S. Shah with learned advocate Mr. Ajay S. Jagirdar for the respondents.
3. The present Appeal from Order is filed under Order 43 rule 1 of CPC at the instance of original defendant who is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 26.08.2025 passed by the 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Mon Sep 29 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 29 22:21:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/186/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined (Rural) below Exh.5 in Special Civil Suit No. 168 of 2018.
4. At the outset, learned advocate Ms. Jani drawn the attention of this Court in regards to the previous order passed by this Court dated 18.03.2025 in Appeal from Order Nos. 127 of 2017 with 105 of 2019, whereby this Court remanded the matter back to the trial Court. Learned advocate Ms. Jani would submit that despite there is a specific direction issued by this Court to decide the issues germane in the matter, the trial Court in a slipshod manner, not decided all such issues more particularly an issue of readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff is remain untouched having not decided, apart from erroneously decided the issue as regards existence of agreement to sell in question.
5. Further, it is pointed out to this Court by the learned advocate Ms. Jani, not able to controvert it by the learned senior advocate Mr. Mehul Shah that some of the paragraphs which are so observed in the impugned injunction order, would be replica of previous injunction order passed by the trial Court which was quashed and set aside by this Court vide its aforesaid order passed in the aforesaid Appeals. It is submitted that this shows, non-application of mind on part of trial Court when adjudicated impugned injunction Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Mon Sep 29 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 29 22:21:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/186/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined application, when remanded back to it.
6. Learned advocates for the respective parties have submitted that the written arguments submitted by the plaintiff as well as defendant which are on record of the suit but appears to have not been taken into account by the trial Court while adjudicating the impugned application.
7. After arguing for some time, under the instructions of their respective clients, learned advocates for the parties have jointly requested this Court that let the impugned order be quashed and set aside and again the matter may be remanded back to the trial Court to decide the lis between the parties.
8. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the request made, it appears that despite there was a direction issued by this Court vide its order dated 18.03.2025 passed in Appeal from Order Nos. 127 of 2017 with 105 of 2019, the trial Court has not taken pain to decide all the issues germane in the matter, especially raised by the defendant.
9. The relevant observation of the aforesaid order passed by this Court requires reference which read thus :
Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Mon Sep 29 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 29 22:21:51 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/186/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined "8. After considering the submissions made by respective learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and after going through the impugned order, I am of the opinion that issues which are raised by the parties are either not gone into or decided by the trial court while adjudicating impugned application. The proper recourse would be to remand the matter back to the trial court thereby, the trial Court will have to rehear Exh.5 - injunction application afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to both the sides and after considering the issues / disputes so raised by the parties in their respective pleadings as well as oral submissions, then after decide afresh Exh. 5 -
injunction application of plaintiff.
8.1 It goes without saying that while undertaking aforesaid exercise, the trial Court is required to decide injunction application, without being influenced by any of the observations so made by it which is impugned in the present appeals as well as any of the observations made by this Court in the present order.
8.2 The concern so expressed by an alleged agreement to sale as well as readiness and willingness to perform their part of contract is concerned, as well as concern of plaintiff about not granting relief qua two pieces of land which is considered to be new tenure land, such issues need to be answered by the trial Court while re-examining the impugned injunction application."
(emphasis supplied)
10. It remain undisputed between the parties that so far as issue regarding readiness and willingness to perform the part of the contract by the plaintiffs concerned, same is not touched upon having not answered by the trial court while adjudicating the injunction application. Even, there is no discussion/deliberation/reasons in regards to the issues raised by the respective parties in their written arguments Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Mon Sep 29 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 29 22:21:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/186/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined and no discussion/considered ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court/High Court of cited decisions, by the trial Court while passing the impugned order.
11. It is very deplorable state of affairs on the part of the trial Court that in a very casual and slipshod manner injunction application is decided, despite there was a direction issued by this Court that too in a suit instituted in the year 2018. This Court is not appreciating such approach on the part of the trial Court. Rather, it is constrained to observe that due to such casualness on the part of the trial Court, the real sufferers would be the litigants, i.e. the parties to the suit.
12. In light of the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court held that impugned order is not sustainable. As there is consensus ad-idem between the parties to remand the matter back to the trial Court, this Court also feels to accept such request.
13. At this stage, learned advocate Ms. Jani for the original defendant requests this Court that when the matter remands back to the trial Court, to avoid any such repetition of mistake or otherwise, let the hearing of the injunction application may be heard and decided by a fresh mind i.e. Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Mon Sep 29 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 29 22:21:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/186/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined New Presiding Officer, other than learned judge who decided impugned injunction application. To which, learned advocate Mr. Jagirdar only say that if defendant so desire, she can file such application before Principal District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural). Further, learned advocate Mr. Jagirdar assures that he will properly advice his client in this regard, and if so requires, they will not object such request made by the defendant before the concern Principal District Judge.
14. Let parties to the suit more particularly original defendant of Special Civil Suit No. 168 of 2018 pending before the 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), may file necessary application within a period of ten days from today, before the concern Principal District Judge for allocating the aforesaid suit to any other Presiding Officer than Presiding Officer who passed impugned order. If such an application will be submitted by the defendant, the same may be accepted by the concern Principal District Judge, keeping in mind the aforesaid aspect of the case. Nonetheless, if so requires in law, give hearing to the parties, then it shall decide said request in regards to transfer of suit.
15. In view of the aforesaid observations, discussions and reasons, the impugned judgment and order dated 26.08.2025 passed by the 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Mon Sep 29 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 29 22:21:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/186/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined Ahmedabad (Rural) below Exh.5 in Special Civil Suit No. 168 of 2018 is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the injunction application filed below Exh. 5 is restored back to its original file.
16. It goes without saying that all the contentions which are raised and to be raised by the parties before the trial Court, requires to be decided afresh by the trial Court without being influenced by any of its observation so far made and or the observation so far made by this Court, but it will have to decide each and every issues germane in the matter. The trial requires to pass reasoned/speaking order on each issue raised. So far as the direction issued by this Court while remanding matter back to trial Court as referred herein above would remain unaltered.
17. The trial Court shall hear and decide afresh Exh.5 injunction application keeping in mind the aforesaid factors, albeit after giving opportunity of hearing to both the side and decide it on or before 15.12.2025.
18. As this Court has quashed the impugned order passed by the trial Court, the defendant is hereby directed not to create any third party rights on the suit property until Exh.5 decides afresh by the trial court. This arrangement is made Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Mon Sep 29 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 29 22:21:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/186/2025 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined just to avoid any future complications until Exh.5 application is decided by the trial Court. The trial court shall decide such application without being influenced by the order of this Court thereby directs defendant not to create any third party right over the suit property.
19. It is open for the respective parties to make all the submissions available in law and also open for the parties to file additional written submissions if so desire.
20. In view of the aforesaid the present Appeal from Order is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. As a sequel, Civil Application for stay stands disposed of.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J) SALIM/ Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Mon Sep 29 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 29 22:21:51 IST 2025