[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Tapubhai Haribhai Nakum vs Dayalji Naranbhai Parmar on 4 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/447/2024 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 447 of 2024
==========================================================
TAPUBHAI HARIBHAI NAKUM
Versus
DAYALJI NARANBHAI PARMAR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIRAL V DAVE(3846) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 04/12/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Viral Dave for the
petitioner.
2. Though served, none remained present for the
respondent.
3. Instant CRA filed u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 is directed against the judgment and order passed below
Exh.15 in Regular Civil Suit No.75 of 2023, whereby the
learned trial Court declined to reject the plaint filed under
Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code, inter alia on the ground that
Order 7 Rule 11 (E) and (F) of the Code are not attracted in
the matter.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that
the learned trial Court has mired the application filed by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/447/2024 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
defendant for rejection of the plaint Order 7 Rule 11 of the
Code. He would further submit that the plaintiff is not raising
any substantial course of action. He would further submit
that the course of action should be stated by the defendant at
page 33 of the present petition and the course of action
pleaded in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant is blur.
The plaintiff who claims that he is the owner of the open land
particulars of which is stated at Annexure A, failed to produce
any documentary evidence, which at first blush, proves that
the plaintiff is the owner of the said open land. He would
further submit that as against that, the defendant relied upon
the Bandhkam Rajachitthi issued by the Hadyana Gram
Panchayat in favour of the defendant, which permitted him to
carry out construction on the plot allotted to him by Hadyana
Gram Panchayat. In the aforesaid circumstances, he would
submit that the course of action pleaded by the plaintiff is blur
and the plaint was required to be rejected. Upon above
submission, learned advocate Mr. Dave prays to allow this
petition.
5. At the outset, let me refer the pleadings in the plaint to
the effect that the plaintiff claims that he is the owner of the
open land particulars of which is stated in Annexure A and the
defendant is trying to encroach upon the said land by carrying
out construction. It is further averred in the plaint that the
defendant has encroached the land upto 10 ft, which is
originally belonged to the plaintiff, by digging pillars. This is
the course of action stated by the plaintiff seeking relief of
declaration and injunction against the defendant.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/447/2024 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
6. What could be noticeable that the plaintiff claims that he
is the owner of the particular land, particulars of which are
stated in Annexure A. The plaintiff was required to place on
record document to support his claim. It is submitted by
learned advocate Mr. Dave that no such document was
produced by the plaintiff, which could establish that the
plaintiffs is the owner of the land, particulars of which are
stated in Annexure A.
7. Perusal of the judgment and order passed by the learned
trial Court demonstrates that the learned trial Court without
understanding the issue raised by the defendant, referred to
certain provisions of law and believed that the suit did not
require rejection. The learned trial Court referred to Order 7
Rule 11 (E) and (F) of the Code and discussed said provision
to consider that there is no ground to reject the plaint.
However, it is not the case of the defendant. The issue of
Order 7 Rule 11 (E) and (F) of the Code was never raised by
the defendant before the learned trial Court. Therefore, it
appears that the learned trial Court has completely misread
the contention raised by the defendant. Therefore, the order
under challenge is required to be set aside.
8. For the foregoing reasons, present petition is allowed
and impugned judgment and order passed below Exh.15 in
Regular Civil Suit No.75 of 2023 dated 25.6.2024 is hereby
quashed and set aside.
8.1 Application Exh.15 in Regular Civil Suit No.75 of 2023 is
restored to its original proceedings.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/447/2024 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2025
undefined
8.2 The learned trial Court is directed to decide application
Exh.15 afresh in accordance with law without being
influenced by this order so also the impugned order, and after
hearing learned advocates for both the sides.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SHEKHAR P. BARVE
