Gujarat High Court
M/S. Vraj Developers vs Rameshbhai Gopalbhai Patel & ... on 18 January, 2017
Author: Sonia Gokani
Bench: Sonia Gokani
C/CRA/26/2017 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 26 of 2017
==========================================================
M/S. VRAJ DEVELOPERS, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, THROUGH PARTNER &
4....Applicant(s)
Versus
RAMESHBHAI GOPALBHAI PATEL & 87....Opponent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MEHULSHARAD SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 1.4 , 2 - 5
==========================================================
CORAM HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
:
Date : 18/01/2017
ORAL ORDER
1. Aggrieved by the order dated November 18, 2016 passed by the learned 12th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat, below Exhibit 74 in Special Civil Suit No.234 of 2015, the present Revision Application has been preferred, whereby the learned Judge has rejected the application under Order VII Rule 11D of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of plaint.
2. It is the case of the original plaintiffs that one Fakirbhai Motlabhai Patel was the owner of Page 1 of 4 HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Thu Mar 30 01:32:59 IST 2017 C/CRA/26/2017 ORDER the land bearing Revenue Survey No.284 situated at village Gaviyar. He died leaving behind him his widow Ratanben and four sons namely Gandabhai, Govindbhai, Dayalbhai and Durlabhbhai. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the sale deed came to be executed on July 13, 1964 in favour of Dahyabhai Kevalbhai Patel and total 35 different sale deeds have been executed between the years 1964 and 2011 qua the said property. According to the plaintiffs, the period of limitation would begin from the date of knowledge, which in this case was October, 2014. The applicantsrevisionist herein preferred an application under Order VII Rule 11D for rejection of the plaint on the ground that after a period of 41 years i.e. from the date of first registered sale deed and mutation of revenue entry No.283 in the revenue record, the suit came to be filed.
3. The concerned Court rejected the same on the ground that it is a mixed question of facts and law vide impugned order.
Page 2 of 4 HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Thu Mar 30 01:32:59 IST 2017 C/CRA/26/2017 ORDER
4. Shri Mehul Shah, learned counsel appearing for the applicants, has relied upon the following decisions :
(i) Suresh Kumar Dagla v. Sarwan and another, reported in 2014(9) SCALE 675.
(ii) N.V. Srinivasa Murthy v. Mariyamma (Dead) by Proposed Lrs., reported in AIR 1977 SC 2421.
(iii) Becharbhai Zaverbhai Patel and another v.
Jashbhai Shivabhai Patel and others, reported in 2013(1) GLR 398.
(iv) Kanjibhai Bhagwanjibhai Patel v. Nanduben Shamjibhai Sorathiya through P.O.A. Dharmesh P. Trivedi and others, reported in 2013(1) GLR 51.
5. It is also the say of the learned counsel for the applicants that the case of the plaintiffs suffers from willful lack of inquiry and negligence. It is a gross negligence on his part, otherwise he would have known various transactions between the years 1964 and 2011. It is further his say that it is in the year 1984 that a suit came to be filed by the father of one of the plaintiffs in respect of two parcels of land situated at village Bhimpur and village Page 3 of 4 HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Thu Mar 30 01:32:59 IST 2017 C/CRA/26/2017 ORDER Sultanpur, but not qua the land in question.
6. Let notice be issued to the opponents, returnable on February 17, 2017. In the meantime, there shall be stay of further proceedings of Special Civil Suit No.234 of 2015 as well as Regular Civil Suit No.1513 of 1985. Direct Service is permitted.
(MS SONIA GOKANI, J.) Aakar Page 4 of 4 HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Thu Mar 30 01:32:59 IST 2017