Gujarat High Court
Rajarshee Enterprise vs Sanjay Ambalal Patel on 8 May, 2026
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3152/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3152 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3152 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
RAJARSHEE ENTERPRISE & ORS.
Versus
SANJAY AMBALAL PATEL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NV GANDHI(1693) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR JAY SNEHAL SHAH(13391) for the Defendant(s) No. 3.1,5,6,7,8
MR SP MAJMUDAR(3456) for the Defendant(s) No. 3.1,5,6,7,8
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 08/05/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA)
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.N.V. Gandhi for the appellants - original plaintiffs and learned advocate Mr.S.P. Majmudar with learned advocate Mr. Jay Snehal Shah for the respondents.
2. The present appeal is preferred by the present appellants - original plaintiffs under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the "Code"), directed against the Page 1 of 19 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 03:36:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3152/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined judgment and decree dated 11.10.2024 passed by the learned 20th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara in Special Civil Suit No.100 of 2024, allowing an application preferred by defendant Nos.29/1, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 vide Exh. 49 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, whereby the learned Trial Court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code.
3. For the sake of there brevity, the parties herein shall be referred to as per the original status as narrated in the suit.
4. Factual matrix leading to the present appeal are that the original plaintiffs have filed the Special Civil Suit No.100 of 2024 before the learned Trial Court for cancellation of the sale-deeds dated 24.02.2023 and 27.03.2023, and also for declaration that the plaintiffs have pre-emptive rights to purchase the suit land. 4.1. In a nutshell, the case of the plaintiffs before the learned trial Court is that the Plaintiff No. 1 is a partnership firm, and Plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 are its partners. Defendant Nos. 1 to 26 and their ancestors have executed a memorandum of understanding and an agreement to sell.
Page 2 of 19 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 03:36:00 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3152/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined 4.2. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit land, which has been specifically stated in the paragraph No.2 of the plaint, i.e., the land situated at village : Gotri, Taluka & District : Vadodara, bearing Block / Survey No.838 and Khata No.191, admeasuring 9004 sq. meters, in T.P. Scheme No.63, Final Plot No.87, and area of the FP 6753 sq. meters, i.e., non-agricultural, has been allotted to the said land. Now, it has been termed as "Suit Land". 4.3. Further, as per the case of the plaintiffs, in the year 1988, the ancestors of Defendant Nos.1 to 26 have executed an irrevocable Power of Attorney in favour of Defendant No. 27, viz. Sanjaybhai Ambalal Patel, and pursuant to this, Power of Attorney - Sanjaybhai Ambalal Patel entered into an agreement on 15.06.2006 with Plaintiff No.1-Firm, and the sale consideration was fixed at Rs.141 per square meter. As per the condition of the said agreement, 25% amount of the sale consideration, i.e. Rs.25,51,000/-, was paid to the Power of Attorney holder of Defendant Nos.1 to 26, and as the suit land was new tenure land, it was agreed between the parties that the said suit land was to be converted into old tenure land, and second installment of 25% of the sale consideration was to be paid on 15.08.2006; Page 3 of 19 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 03:36:00 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3152/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined pursuant to which the process regarding conversion of land would start.
4.4. Subsequently, Defendant No. 27 - Sanjay Ambalal Patel, entered into an agreement to sell on 02.06.1998 with Defendant No. 28, Govindbhai Vitthalbhai Patel, and for the suit land, Defendant No. 28, Govindbhai Vitthalbhai Patel, filed Special Civil Suit No. 882 of 1998 before the Principal Civil Judge, Vadodara, for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 02.06.1998. In the said civil suit, consent terms were filed, and pursuant thereto, a decree was drawn on 28.08.2002. Pursuant to this decree, the ancestors of Defendant Nos. 1 to 26 were to execute a sale deed as per the decree.
4.5. Further, subsequently, one Mr.Indrajitsinh Pratapsinh Jadeja, a land broker, contacted Plaintiff No. 2, and the original owner of the suit land, Defendant No. 27, the Power-of-Attorney holder - Mr. Sanjay Ambalal Patel, and Defendant No. 28, Govindbhai Vitthalbhai Patel, through his administrator, Ratilal Manilal Patel and Ambarish Ratilal Patel entered into a deal for the purchase of the said suit land, and at that time, an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- was paid to Shri Indrajitsinh Jadeja as brokerage by Page 4 of 19 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 03:36:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3152/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined the plaintiffs, and Defendant Nos. 28 and 29. 4.6. Subsequently, Defendant No.27 - Sanjaybhai Ambalal Patel, Defendant No. 28 Govindbhai Vitthalbhai Patel, and the administrator of Defendant No. 28, i.e., Ratilal Patel, accepted Rs. 25,51,000/- from the plaintiffs towards the sale consideration, and a receipt was issued in favour of the plaintiffs. It was decided to sell the said suit land to the plaintiffs, and Rs. 25,51,000/- was accepted on 15.06.2006 by Defendant Nos. 27 to 29 on behalf of the original owners.
4.7. However, subsequently, the administrator of Govindbhai Patel, i.e., Ratilal Patel, expired, and thereafter Defendant Nos. 27 to 29.1 and 29.2 were administering the said suit land. The plaintiffs have frequently called upon the defendants to execute a sale deed, but they were not ready to execute the same. 4.8. Thereafter, the plaintiffs came to know that Defendant Nos. 27 to 29.1 and 29.2, in connivance with the original owners, executed a registered sale deed for the suit land on 24.02.2023 in favour of Defendant No.30, Rajesh Govindbhai Patel, upon Page 5 of 19 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 03:36:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3152/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined receiving a sale consideration of Rs.9,79,20,000/-. Subsequently, within one month, i.e., on 27.03.2023, the said Rajesh Govindbhai Patel again sold the suit land by a registered sale deed to Defendant Nos. 31 to 34 for a sale consideration of Rs. 10 crore. 4.9. Hence, the suit was been filed by the plaintiffs for declaration and cancellation of the sale deeds dated 24.02.2023 and 27.03.2023. After filing of the suit, notices were issued to the defendants, and they appeared through their advocate. Defendant No. 29/1 and Defendant Nos. 30 to 34, vide Exhibit 49, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code to reject the plaint, mainly on the ground that, as per the plaintiffs' case, the Power of Attorney holder of the original landowner had entered into an agreement on 15.06.2006 for the suit land, and as the suit land was, at the time of execution of the said agreement, new tenure land, and even in the revenue record it was specifically mentioned that the said suit land was of restricted tenure, which was also mentioned in the agreement to sell as well as in the plaint, as per Section 43 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1948"), there is a specific bar even to enter into Page 6 of 19 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 03:36:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3152/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined such an agreement for new tenure land. Hence, mainly on this ground, the application was preferred to reject the plaint as being barred by law under the Act of 1948.
5. After hearing rival submission of the parties, the learned trial court was pleased to allow the application preferred by the defendants at exhibit 49 and rejected the plaint of the plaintiffs by judgment and order dated 11.10.2024, and being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said judgment and decree of rejection of the plaint, the present appeal has been preferred.
6. Learned advocate Mr. N.V. Gandhi for the appellants - plaintiffs submitted that looking to the prayers sought in the suit, the same pertains to cancellation of two sale deeds executed by the landowners, in spite of the fact that an agreement to sell had been executed by the Power of Attorney holder of the landowner in favour of the defendants. Hence, in view of the prayers, the plaint could not have been rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. Page 7 of 19 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 03:36:00 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3152/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined 6.1. It is submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned trial court is contrary to law and the evidence on record and is, therefore, required to be quashed and set aside. 6.2. It is submitted that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate that, from the averments made in the plaint, the suit of the plaintiff is not hit by Section 43 of the Act of 1948, as there is a specific mention in the agreement itself that necessary permission is required to be obtained prior to execution of the sale deed.
6.3. It is submitted that the learned trial court has wrongly applied the decision of the Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Deceased Shaikh Ismailbhai Hushainbhai Through Legal Heirs versus Vankar Ambalal Dhanabhai, reported in 2024 (1) GLH 222.
6.4. Further, it is submitted that the trial court ought to have appreciated that the application preferred under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code is not to be considered in a mechanical manner and requires careful consideration of the pleadings, and hence Page 8 of 19 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 03:36:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3152/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined the same is required to be quashed and set aside. 6.5. Further, it is submitted that as per agreement entered into in favour of the appellant, it was to come into force only after conversion of the land from new tenure to old tenure, and in respect of the said new tenure land, a compromise decree has already been passed by the competent civil court. Therefore, the judgment of the Larger Bench of this Court with respect to Section 43 of the Act of 1948 would not be applicable to the present case.
6.6. Further, it is submitted that the learned trial court has also failed to appreciate the said fact merely because there are some discrepancies in the date of execution of the agreement and the purchase of the stamp paper for the sale agreement to sell, and the same cannot be a ground to reject the plaint at the threshold, as it is a trivial issue involved in the suit, which requires a trial. 6.7. Further, it was submitted that learned trial court has erroneously held that the suit of the plaintiffs based on the agreement to sell is also barred by the law of limitation, whereas the learned trial court has failed to appreciate the fact that time Page 9 of 19 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 03:36:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3152/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined was not the essence of the contract and that the limitation would run from the date of NA permission granted by the concerned authority.
6.8. Considering the scope of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code and the fact that only trivial issues are involved in the present case, the learned trial court has not considered the facts properly and wrongly rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. Hence, the present appeal requires consideration and deserves to be allowed, and judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court is required to be quashed and set aside.
7. Learned advocate Mr. S. P. Majmudar with learned advocate Mr. Jay Shah for the respondents has vehemently opposed the said appeal and submitted that it is an admitted position that as per the alleged agreement, it is specifically mentioned that the suit land is a new tenure land, and considering the decision of the Larger Bench of this court in case of Deceased Shaikh Ismailbhai Hushainbhai Through Legal Heirs (supra), the transaction is hit by Section 43 of the Act of 1948. It has been clearly held by the Larger Bench that even an agreement to sell cannot be entered into in respect of new tenure land, as it is hit Page 10 of 19 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 03:36:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3152/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined by Section 43 of the Act of 1948. Hence, it is submitted that no illegality has been committed by the learned trial court and the present appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
8. After hearing the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, perusing the impugned Judgment and also perusing the paper book, the following points come before this Court for consideration:-
(i) Whether appellants prove that
the learned trial court has erred in
coming to the conclusion that
agreement to sale is hit by Section
43 of the Gujarat Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, and
therefore plaint is to be rejected
under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908?
(ii) What order?
9. The findings are as under:
1. Negative
2. As per the final order.
Page 11 of 19
Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 03:36:00 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3152/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026
undefined
10. So far as the controversy raised before this court is concerned, the original plaintiffs have filed the suit on the basis of an agreement of understanding, which has been produced along with the plaint vide and marked as Exh. 4/1 and they claim their right pursuant to the said agreement.
11. The said agreement was executed on 15.06.2006 in respect of the suit land by one Mr. Sanjay Ambalal Patel, acting as the power of attorney holder of one Ibrahim Mohamadbhai and 129 others.
12. The second party were partners of Rajshree Developers, namely, Mr. Laxmansinh Sabalsinh Jadeja and Mr.Amit Dan Rameshkumar Shah. As per the agreement of understanding, the sale consideration has been fixed at Rs. 141 per sq.ft. and as per the agreement, 25% of the first installment amounting to Rs.25,51,000/- was paid. It also appears that the process for conversion of the said suit land from new tenure to old tenure was to be initiated and the expenses were to be borne by the purchaser, the second installment was to be paid on 15.08.2006, the possession was to be handed over to Rajshree Developers, title clearance is to be obtained and thereafter, a development Page 12 of 19 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 03:36:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3152/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined agreement or agreement to sell was to be executed.
13. Further, it is also stated in the agreement of understanding that the purchaser has to bear all the expenses for converting the suit land into old tenure land, and whatever premium was to be paid, shall be borne by the second party purchaser. Further, all other expenses incurred for obtaining NA, NOC, stamp duty, and others shall also to be borne by the second party - proposed purchaser.
14. Further, a Power of Attorney has been produced along with the plaint and marked as 4/9. The said Power of Attorney was executed by the ancestors of defendant Nos. 1 to 26 in favour of defendant No.27 on 02.06.1998. Upon perusal of this document, which is an irrevocable general Power of Attorney, it is found that total seven persons had executed the said Power of Attorney in favour of one Mr.Sanjaybhai Ambalal Patel for the administration and other related works concerning the said suit land.
15. Pursuant to the Power of Attorney, an agreement of understanding was executed by the Power of Attorney holder in Page 13 of 19 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 03:36:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3152/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined favour of the plaintiffs in the year 2006. Upon perusal of the general Power of Attorney, it transpires that it is not an irrevocable general Power of Attorney on its face and the said power of attorney is not coupled with any interest. Further, it does not transpire from the agreement of understanding executed by the Power of Attorney holder in favour of the plaintiffs that on 15.06.2006, whether any of the persons who had executed the power of attorney in favour of Sanjaybhai on 02.06.1998 were alive at that time or whether they had already expired.
16. Further, it is required to consider the averments made in the plaint. In the plaint, the plaintiffs have specifically stated in paragraph No.3 that the suit land was of a new tenure land and that it requires a procedure to convert the said suit land into old tenure land. Thus, from a plain reading of the plaint as well as the documentary evidence produced along with it, it is apparent that the fact that the suit land, at the time of the agreement/understanding was of new tenure land, is not in dispute.
Page 14 of 19 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 03:36:00 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3152/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined
17. It is an admitted position that the suit land was new tenure land at the time of the agreement/understanding. The learned trial Court has relied upon the decision of the Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Deceased Shaikh Ismailbhai Hushainbhai Through Legal Heirs (supra) and recorded a finding that the said agreement/understanding is hit by Section 43 of the Act of 1948. In the said case, the Larger Bench has settled the proposition of law wherein, the question of reference was framed pertaining to "whether the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the suit for specific performance of a contract based on an illegal or invalid agreement to sell hit by Section 43 of the Tenancy Act, 1948 is not maintainable", and by answering the said reference, the Larger Bench, more particularly in paragraph Nos.138, 139, 151 and 153, held as under:
"138. We may clarify that we are not concerned with the dispute pertaining to the validity of an agreement, i.e. the dispute whether an agreement is hit by Section 43 or not, i.e. whether it is valid or not? The issue before us is plain and simple; as to whether the agreement which has been executed with a view to transfer a restricted tenure land as prescribed in Section 43(1), without the permission of the Collector, can be specifically enforced by the Civil Court by granting a decree of specific performance of such an agreement." Our concern is about the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide on the question of enforceability of such an agreement of sale, which in our Page 15 of 19 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 03:36:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3152/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined considered opinion clearly resides in the Civil Court as held by the Division Bench in Ganpatlal (supra). The Civil Court alone will have jurisdiction to adjudicate on the question of enforceability of the agreement of sale, on the basis of which the suit for specific performance has been executed. It is the Civil Court which alone can look into the fact as to whether the agreement on the basis of which the suit for specific performance is instituted is a valid agreement, not hit by any statutory provision, or forbidden by law or opposed to public policy.
139. The question as to enforceability of an agreement hit by Section 43 of the Tenancy Act, 1948, to grant a decree of specific performance, cannot be by any stretch of imagination, a question within the scope of the jurisdiction of the revenue authority under the Tenancy Act, 1948. There is no gainsaying that Civil Court will not be required to stay a suit for specific performance based on an agreement hit by Section 43(1) of the Tenancy Act, 1948 and relegate the parties to approach the Mamaltdar to decide on the question of validity of such an agreement.
(g) Enforceability of the agreement hit by Section 43 of the Tenancy Act:-
151.On a careful reading of the provision in Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the law laid down by the Apex Court in Dahiben (supra), in light of the dispute before us, we may note that in order to maintain the suit for specific performance of agreement, which is hit by Section 43(1) of the Tenancy Act, 1948, the plaintiff would be required to disclose the cause of action for seeking a decree of specific performance of such an agreement. The cause of action for a suit for specific performance of an agreement of refusal by the Vendor inspite of readiness and willingness of the vendee to execute the sale deed, will not be existing in a case where the agreement itself is invalid being hit by Section 43(1), inasmuch as, no cause of action can be said to have arisen asking the defendant to perform his part of the contract when there is no sanction and the agreement itself is illegal or invalid. Further, on the averments made in the plaint, in conjunction with the documents relied upon by the plaintiff, the Civil Court will be in a position to ascertain the question of enforceability of the agreement. It will be in a position to Page 16 of 19 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 03:36:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3152/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined ascertain that the agreement, which is the basis of the suit, whether is hit by Section 43(1) or not, inasmuch as, to seek a decree of specific performance of agreement, the plaintiff is required to disclose and establish two circumstances: (i) firstly, that the documents, which is the basis of the suit is a valid document in the eye of law and (ii) secondly, that the cause of action has arisen prior to the presentation of the plaint. If the documents, i.e. the agreement is an illegal or invalid document in the eye of law, the Civil Court from the statement in the plaint itself will ascertain the suit being barred by law. In any case,a suit basis of which is an invalid document in the eye of law or where there exists no cause of action to institute the suit on the date of the presentation of the plaint, the Civil Court will have no option but to reject the plaint, at the threshold, under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The arguments that the Civil court will be required to frame the issue as to the validity of the agreement, which is the basis of the suit and must necessarily proceed with the trial to arrive at the decision as to whether the decree of specific performance of an agreement hit by law, is to be granted or not, does not appeal to us.
153. We are in respectful agreement with the decision of the Division Bench in Naranbhai Kanjibhai Gajera (supra), holding that the Division Bench decision in Amarben (supra) can be said to be 'per incuriam' ignoring statutory provisions and in view of the decision of another Division Bench dated 21.06.2021 in Vijaybhai Shambhubhai Patel (supra), which was challenged in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.5124 of 2022, and which has been dismissed vide judgement and order dated 10.11.20222 affirming the Division Bench judgement in Vijaybhai Shambhubhai Patel (supra)."
18. Therefore, considering the said reference, the Larger Bench answered it in the affirmative that the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code on the ground that a suit for specific performance of a contract, based on an illegal Page 17 of 19 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 03:36:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3152/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined or invalid agreement to sale, hit by Section 43 of the Act of 1948, is not maintainable.
19. Considering this, it is an admitted position that in the present case, the suit land in respect of which, the agreement/understanding was executed, was of new tenure land. Therefore, it is hit by the provisions of Section 43(1) of the Act of 1948, as the agreement has been executed without obtaining prior permission of the competent authority as envisaged under Section 43(1) of the said Act. Further, in absence of conversion of the suit land into old tenure land, no such agreement can be entered into and since the agreement to sell pertains to new tenure land, it is hit by Section 43 of the Act of 1948.
20. Considering the above, in our considered opinion, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are just and proper and do not require any interference. The learned trial Court, while coming to the said conclusion, has rightly relied upon the ratio laid down by the Larger Bench in case of Deceased Shaikh Ismailbhai Hushainbhai Through Legal Heirs (supra). Page 18 of 19 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 03:36:00 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3152/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined
21. Accordingly, the appeal is required to be dismissed as plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code as it is hit by Section 43 of the Act of 1948. Hence, Point No.1 is answered in the negative.
22. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the suit is hit by Section 43(1) of the Act of 1948 and, therefore, the trial Court has rightly rejected the plaint of the plaintiffs under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code.
23. In view of above, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
24. Decree is to be drawn accordingly.
25. In view of disposal of the present appeal, Civil Application No.1 of 2025 would not survive and stands disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) Sd/-
(L. S. PIRZADA, J) KUMAR ALOK Page 19 of 19 Uploaded by KUMAR ALOK(HC01091) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 09 03:36:00 IST 2026