Vardan Industries Through ... vs Shaileshkumar Vanmalidas Patel
2022 Latest Caselaw 6918 Guj

      C/CRA/209/2021                                  ORDER DATED: 03/08/2022




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 209 of 2021

==========================================================
     VARDAN INDUSTRIES THROUGH PRAKASHBHAI DASARATHBHAI
                        PATEL & 3 other(s)
                            Versus
          SHAILESHKUMAR VANMALIDAS PATEL & 5 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. SAMATA V PATEL(3784) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
VRAJLAL C PATEL(8463) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR DHAVAL M BAROT(2723) for the Opponent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s) No. 6
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE

                                 Date : 03/08/2022

                                  ORAL ORDER

1. The present Civil Revision Application impugns judgment and order dated 22.02.2021 passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Dholka in Regular Civil Suit No.10 of 2016 whereby the learned Trial Judge has rejected the application under Order VII Rule XI of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 preferred by the applicants herein - original defendants.

2. Learned advocate Ms. Samata Patel for the applicants submits that the application under Order VII Rule XI was filed for rejection of the plaint. She submits that the issue of limitation was raised and the prayer was made to dismiss the suit in terms of the provisions of Order VII Rule XI (d). She further submits that despite taking note of the said prayer in paragraph 1 of the impugned order and also discussing the said issue in paragraph 7 of the impugned order, no specific finding has been recorded by the learned Trial Judge with respect to the said issue.

C/CRA/209/2021 ORDER DATED: 03/08/2022

3. Learned advocate Mr. Hari Brahambhatt appearing on behalf of learned advocate. Mr. Dhaval Barot for the respondents - original plaintiffs submits that a perusal of the observations in paragraph 7 of the impugned order would reveal that the learned Trial Judge had adjudicated the issue of limitation and also held that the arguments on behalf of the plaintiffs lend support to the contention of the plaintiffs that the suit is within the limitation.

4. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

5. It is seen that though the learned Trial Judge had dealt with the issue of limitation in paragraph 7 of the impugned order, no specific finding with respect to whether the suit is prima facie within limitation or not, has been rendered. Further, learned advocate Ms. Samata Patel has contended that certain judgments were also relied upon on the issue of limitation, which were not dealt with nor recorded in the observations in paragraph 7. It is seen from the impugned order that the issue of limitation has been dealt with in a cryptic manner in paragraph 7 of the impugned order. Learned advocate for the respondents could not dispute the fact that no specific finding with respect to limitation has been rendered.

6. In view of above observations, in the interest of justice, the impugned judgment and order dated 22.02.2021 passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Dholka in Regular Civil Suit No.10 of 2016 is hereby quashed and set aside. The learned Trial Judge is directed to hear the application under Order VII Rule XI preferred by the applicants - original defendants afresh after giving due opportunities to both the parties. All the contentions are left open to the parties. The parties are at liberty to raise the additional contentions, if any, in support of their case. The

C/CRA/209/2021 ORDER DATED: 03/08/2022

application under Order VII Rule XI shall be decided afresh on its merits and in accordance with law. The learned Trial Judge is directed to decide the said application within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

7. The Civil Revision Application is disposed of accordingly.

Direct service is permitted.

(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.)

cmk