Gujarat High Court
Bhoi Ramanbhai Gagubhai vs Vishnubhai Narendrasinh Vaghela on 14 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/319/2023 ORDER DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 319 of 2023
==========================================================
BHOI RAMANBHAI GAGUBHAI
Versus
VISHNUBHAI NARENDRASINH VAGHELA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
VATSAL R PATEL(9349) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR JIGAR P RAVAL(2008) for the Opponent(s) No. 1,10,11,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 14/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocates for the petitioner. Though
served, none remained present for the respondents.
2. Present CRA challenges the order passed below Exh.13
in Regular Civil Suit No.37 of 2022, whereby the learned trial
Court dismissed application filed under O 7 R 11 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short "the Code") preferred by the
petitioner defendant on the ground that no cause of action
arose in the suit, as the issue that whether the plaintiffs has
right to pass through the subject land is pending before this
Court pursuant to the proceedings undertaken under the
Mamlatdar Court Act and the matter is subjudice and
therefore, the respondents plaintiffs cannot claim any damage
of Rs.14,50,000/- for alleged act of the defendant to close the
right of way.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/319/2023 ORDER DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner argued in line of the
averments made in the petition and would submit that since
the matter is subjudice before this Court, the plaintiffs cannot
claim any damage for alleged act of closing the right of way as
the act is yet to be established and therefore, the suit is
premature or has no cause of action.
4. This Court is not impressed with the submission of
learned advocate Mr. Patel, more particularly, on the ground
that the bundle of facts is pleaded by the plaintiffs may
constitute the cause of action. There is no specific reason or
date required for fixing particular cause of action. In para 5
of the plaint, the plaintiffs has pleaded following cause of
action.
"The defendants of the present case have blocked the
permanent canal road of Block/Rail No. 222 of Moje
Namisara on 21-12-18, which is a traditional ten-foot
canal road passing through the defendants' farm on
the western side, and as a result of that
inconvenience, we the plaintiffs have to suffer in
coming and going to our farm and as a result of that
inconvenience, we have to use any mechanical
equipment to plow and sow the crops of the year
2019 and move goods. We the plaintiffs have to get
compensation for the loss of crop production caused
to us due to the defendants' act of blocking the road
and to get compensation for removing the bushes,
bushes and acacias that have grown for about two
and a half years and making the land fertile. In
accordance with the order of Mamlatdar Saheb Shri's
Mamlatdar Court Act 1/2022 dated 13-04-2022 and
its implementation. With the opening of the road on
04-05-2022, we are forced to file the current claim."
5. Thereafter, the plaintiffs made following relief:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/319/2023 ORDER DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
"The traditional ten-foot canal road of the family of
the defendants passing through the field of the
defendants on the western side is blocked, and we
the plaintiffs have to suffer the inconvenience of
going to and from our field and as a part of that
inconvenience, we the plaintiffs cannot use any
mechanical equipment to plow and sow the crops of
the year 2019 and move goods and food and fertilizer
due to the defendant's act of blocking the road.
Therefore, the compensation for the loss of
production of the summer-monsoon crop and the
expenses incurred in removing the bushes, weeds and
acacia that have grown for about two and a half years
and making the land fertile, a total compensation of
about Rs. 14,50,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakh Fifty
Thousand) will be ordered."
6. Thus, essentially, the plaintiffs claimed damage of
Rs.14,50,000/- on the ground that the defendant has illegally
closed the right of way. Merely because, certain proceedings
are pending before this Court at the instance of the petitioner
defendant challenging concurrent findings of fact arrived at
by the Mamlatdar Court as well as the appellate Court under
the Mamlatdar Court Act would not bar filing of the civil suit.
Whether the plaintiffs succeed in the suit or otherwise is a
different thing, but at this juncture, it cannot be said that the
plaintiffs have no right to bring the civil suit. The learned trial
Court while rejecting the application referred to the texts of O
7 R 11 of the Code and further referred to the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in case of PV Guru Raj Reddy By GPA
Laxmi Narayan Reddy and another Vs. P. Neeradha Reddy
and others, AIR 2015 SC 2485.
7. In view of above, according to this Court, the learned
trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/319/2023 ORDER DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
application.
8. For the reasons stated herein above, present petition
fails and stands dismissed. Notice discharged.
9. Registry is directed to return back the R & P, if any, to
the concerned Court forthwith.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SHEKHAR P. BARVE
