Gujarat High Court
Natwarbhai Shakrabhai Patel vs Pushpaben Shakrabhai Patel W/O ... on 15 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/669/2022 ORDER DATED: 15/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 669 of 2022
With
R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 125 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2024
In R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 125 of 2024
==========================================================
NATWARBHAI SHAKRABHAI PATEL & ORS.
Versus
PUSHPABEN SHAKRABHAI PATEL W/O DWARKADAS PATEL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR EKANT G AHUJA(5323) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6.1,6.2,6.3
MR BJ TRIVEDI(921) for the Opponent(s) No. 2.1,2.2,2.3
MR BM MANGUKIYA(437) for the Opponent(s) No. 1
MR PRUTHVIRAJ Y GOHIL(13166) for the Opponent(s) No. 5
MR VIMAL A PUROHIT(5049) for the Opponent(s) No. 2.1,2.2,2.3
MS JIGNASA B TRIVEDI(3090) for the Opponent(s) No. 2.1,2.2,2.3
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s) No. 4
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Opponent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 15/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
ORDER IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 669 of 2022
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate
Mr.B.M.Mangukiya waives service of rule on behalf of respondent
no.1 and Mr. B.J. Trivedi, learned advocate waives service of rule
on behalf of the respondent nos.2.1, 2.2 and 2.3.
2. The present Civil Revision Application is filed under Section
115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/669/2022 ORDER DATED: 15/04/2025
undefined
"CPC") by original defendant Nos.3 to 8 of Civil Suit No.100 of
2021 against the order dated 16/11/2022 passed below Exhibit 22
and 23 by City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, in the aforesaid suit,
whereby the trial court has rejected their impugned applications
filed under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC.
3. At the outset, Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. B.B. Naik with
Mr.Ekant G. Ahuja would submit that though there are several
issues raised by the revisionist - defendant Nos.3 to 8 in their
impugned application, except issue of limitation, that too in the
reference of Will executed by father of the plaintiffs - defendant
nos.3 to 8 is touched upon and rest of the issues are not even
answered by the trial court while passing the impugned order.
3.1 Learned senior counsel Mr.Naik would further submit that
there is a specific case made out by the revisionists in their
impugned application that plaint is not disclosing cause of action, it
is a clever piece of drafting, barred by promissory estoppel,
separation of fact, non-disclosure of correct and true fact, as well
as not submitted requisite documents to maintain the suit. All these
issues remain unanswered by the trial court while passing the
impugned order.
4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya and Mr. B.J.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/669/2022 ORDER DATED: 15/04/2025
undefined
Trivedi appearing for the respective contesting respondents -
original plaintiffs, would submit that as such the trial court has
correctly observed in the impugned order that there is no
substance in the impugned application so filed by the revisionist,
thereby correctly rejected the impugned application.
4.1 Nonetheless, learned advocate Mr.Mangukiya and Mr.
Trivedi would candidly submit that the issues, which are raised by
the revisionist in their impunged application as contended by
learned senior counsel Mr. Naik, is not happily answered by the
trial court.
4.2 So, at this stage, learned counsels appearing for the
respondents have stated at the bar that the matter may be
remanded back to the trial court for fresh adjudication of impugned
application filed by defendant Nos.3 to 8, thereby trial court can
hear and decide the impugned application afresh.
5. Learned senior counsel Mr. Naik has no objection if this court
remands the matter back to the trial court for re-adjudicating and
re-deciding the impugned application afresh by the trial court.
6. As there is a broad consensus and learned advocate
appearing for the respective parties are ad idem, and after going
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/669/2022 ORDER DATED: 15/04/2025
undefined
through the impugned order, this court is also of the view that the
issues, which are raised by the revisionist in the impugned
application, is either not touched upon or answered by the trial
court.
7. So, without expressing any opinion on the merits and with a
view to see that the trial court can examine the impugned
application afresh, this court is of the view that the matter is
required to be remanded back, which is hereby ordered. In view of
the aforesaid, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The
matter is remanded to the trial court.
8. The impugned application filed below Exhibit 22 and 23 is
hereby restored back to its file. The trial court is hereby directed to
give reasonable opportunity of hearing to all parties concerned and
adjudicate the impugned application afresh, so filed by defendant
nos.3 to 8 under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC within three months from
the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
9. It is also made clear that this court has neither gone into nor
examined the merits of the matter and the trial court shall also
decide the impugned application afresh without being influenced
by any of its observations made earlier in the impugned order
and/or by this Court in the present order. No unnecessary
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/669/2022 ORDER DATED: 15/04/2025
undefined
adjournment can be asked or granted and the parties shall extend
full cooperation and support, thereby the trial court can adjudicate
the impugned application within stipulated time.
10. In view of the aforesaid observation, this revision application
is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No
order as to costs.
ORDER IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 125 of 2024 WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2024
1. This Appeal from Order is filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the CPC) by
the original plaintiffs against the judgment and order dated
08.07.2024 passed by Additional City Civil Judge, Court No.15, City
Civil Court, Ahmedabad, below Exhibit 5 in Civil Suit No.100 of
2021, thereby their injunction application has been rejected.
2. At the outset, learned counsel Mr. Mangokiya with Mr.B.J.
Trivedi would submit that today this court has quashed and set
aside the order passed by the trial court, whereby application of
defendant nos. 3 to 8 filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC is ordered
to be restored back to its file and the matter is accordingly
remanded back to the trial court.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/669/2022 ORDER DATED: 15/04/2025
undefined
The issues, which are germane in the impugned injunction
application and certain aspects, which are raised by the plaintiffs,
remained unanswered by the trial court while adjudicating their
injunction application.
2.1 So, both learned counsels appearing for the original
plaintiffs have requested this court to quash the impugned order
and further requested to remand the matter back to the trial court
for re-adjudicating their injunction application on its merits afresh.
3. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. B.B. Naik with
Mr.Ekant G. Ahuja for the contesting respondents, under the
instruction of their client, have no objection if such a recourse may
be adopted by this court.
4. So, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
case, and as there is consensus ad idem between the parties, it
would be appropriate that the impugned order passed by trial court
can be quashed and set aside and the matter can be remanded
back to the trial court for re-adjudicating injunction application so
filed by the original plaintiff afresh.
5. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/669/2022 ORDER DATED: 15/04/2025
undefined
08.07.2024 passed by Additional City Civil Judge, Court No.15, City
Civil Court, Ahmedabad, below Exhibit 5 in Civil Suit No.100 of
2021 is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to the
trial court.
6. In view of the aforesaid, the injunction application so filed by
original plaintiff below Exhibit 6-7 in their Civil suit No.100 of 2021
is restored back to its file.
7. After giving an opportunity of hearing to all the parties
concerned, the trial court is hereby directed to decide such
injunction application afresh in accordance with law without being
influenced by any of its earlier observations so made in the order
impugned as well as any of the observations so made by this court
in the present order, if any.
8. It is made clear that this court has neither gone into nor
examined the merits of the matter.
9. It is also hereby directed that the trial court, after giving
reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned,
shall adjudicate the injunction application within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. It is also
made clear that no unnecessary adjournment can be asked or
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/669/2022 ORDER DATED: 15/04/2025
undefined
granted and the parties shall extend full cooperation and support,
thereby the trial court can adjudicate the impugned application
within stipulated time.
10. In view of the aforesaid, the present appeal from order is
disposed of accordingly. The civil application is also disposed of
accordingly.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J)
MOHD MONIS
