Gujarat High Court
Navdip Education Trust vs Lh Of Bhagwanbhai Jesingbhai Patel on 21 October, 2022
Author: A. S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
C/CRA/199/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 199 of 2021
With
R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 200 of 2021
With
R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 201 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA Sd/-
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ? NO
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? YES
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ? NO
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution NO
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
NAVDIP EDUCATION TRUST
Versus
LH OF BHAGWANBHAI JESINGBHAI PATEL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SANDIP M PATEL(5649) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Opponent(s) No. 1,4
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s) No. 2,4.1,4.2,4.3,6
MR ANSHIN DESAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRINEEL M SHAH(9374)
for the Opponent(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4
UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Opponent(s) No. 3,5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 21/10/2022
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. RULE. Learned advocate Mr.Shrineel Shah waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent Nos.1.1 to 1.4.
Page 1 of 19 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 04:33:21 IST 2022C/CRA/199/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2022
2. In the captioned Civil Revision Application No.199 of 2021, the applicant has assailed the order dated 17.03.2021 passed by 8th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur below Exh.1 in Civil Misc. Application (for Leave to Appeal) No.129 of 2020, whereby the applicant is permitted to challenge the judgement and decree dated 25.08.2013 passed by Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur in Regular Civil Suit No.694 of 2009.
2.1 In Civil Revision Application No.200 of 2021, the same order dated 17.03.2021 passed below Exh.11 filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC rejecting the said application is assailed.
2.2 In Civil Revision Application No.201 of 2021, the applicant has assailed the same order dated 17.03.2021, whereby the application at Exh.1/B is filed by the respondents for condonation of delay is allowed.
2.3 Since the impugned orders, which are sought to be challenged in the present applications are of the same date and issues are also inter- connected, they are decided by this common judgement and order.
FACTS Page 2 of 19 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 04:33:21 IST 2022 C/CRA/199/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2022
3. All the present proceedings as well as the Court below emanates from the lands bearing Revenue Survey No.526/3, admeasuring 137 sq.mtr. out of 2,125 sq.mtr. and Revenue Survey No.526/4 admeasuring 1,688 sq.mtr. out of 2,226 sq.mtr. situated at Village Vejalpur, Dist. Ahmedabad.
3.1 In the year 1994 i.e. on 13.12.1994, Civil Suit No.933 of 1994 is instituted by one Arun Shukla, Principal of Adarsh Hindi Vidhyalaya against (i) Shankarbhai Bariya; (ii) Moghaji; and
(iii) Mafaji praying for right of way from the plot of land admeasuring 600 sq.yards of Survey No.526 paiki. The said school is being run by the present applicant-Trust.
3.2 It appears that an unregistered agreement to sell was executed by one Shakriben, Ganpatji, Bhalaji and Hiraji in favour of Navdeep Education Trust for the land bearing Revenue Survey No.526/4 for the sale consideration of Rs.2,15,000/-. Thereafter, Civil Suit No.833 of 1998 is instituted by the present applicant-Trust against one Dahyaji Thakor, Shakriben Thakor through their Power of Attorney Holder Shankarbhai Baraiya praying for permanent injunction against the defendant Thakor family for not disturbing the possession of the applicant-Trust for the land bearing Revenue Survey Nos.526/3 and 526/4, admeasuring 1,347 Page 3 of 19 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 04:33:21 IST 2022 C/CRA/199/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2022 sq.mtr. It appears that the said suit is instituted by alleging that the agreement to sell executed in the year 1987 in favour of the applicant-Trust by Thakor family is not in existence.
3.3 On 27.12.1998, an unregistered supplementary agreement, General Power of Attorney and affidavit is entered into between Shakriben, Ganpatji, Hiraji and Bhalaji in favour of the applicant-Trust accepting the transaction in favour of the applicant-Trust and also acknowledging the fact that the same was produced by way of a pursis dated 06.02.1999 in Civil Suit No.833 of 1998. Pursis (at Exh.21) is filed on 06.02.1999 producing the unregistered supplementary agreement, General Power of Attorney deed and affidavit in favour of the applicant-Trust by Thakor family dated 27.12.1998 in Civil Suit No.833 of 1998. On 25.02.1999, a pursis (at Exh.23) is filed in Civil Suit No.833 of 1998 producing the affidavits of Bhalaji, Ganpatji, Hiraji and Shakriben i.e. Thakor family declaring that the documents dated 27.12.1998 are not signed by them and they have denied the contents of the said document. The relevant date would be 17.09.1999, wherein father of the present respondents - Bhagwanbhai Jesingbhai Patel purchased the land bearing Revenue Survey No.526/3, admeasuring 137 sq.mtr. and Revenue Page 4 of 19 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 04:33:21 IST 2022 C/CRA/199/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2022 Survey No.526/4 admeasuring 1,688 sq.mtr. from the aforesaid persons i.e. Shakriben Shanaji, Bhalaji Shanaji, Hiraji Shanaji, Ganpatji Shanaji, Shantaben Dahyaji, Chanchiben Dahyaji and Dasbhai Dahyaji, through Power of Attorney Mr.Navinchandra Bansilal Sathwara and Mr.Girishbhai Natwarlal Patel by way of a registered sale deed, which was registered before the Sub Registrar at Sr.No.2862 for consideration of Rs.3,27,300/- and accordingly, Revenue Entry No.8213 came to be mutated on 06.01.2000 recording the sale transaction, which is also certified on 10.03.2000.
3.4 In Civil Suit No.833 of 1998, by an order dated 30.10.2001 passed below Exh.5, the application filed by the applicant-Trust was rejected by observing that the applicant-Trust does not have prima facie and bona fide case in its favour. Thereafter, on 29.03.2008, Shri Bhagwanbhai Patel i.e. father of respondent Nos.1.1 to 1.4 executed a registered sale deed in favour of one Chandrakant Bothra for Revenue Survey No.526/3 admeasuring 137 sq.mtr. and Revenue Survey No.526/4 admeasuring 1,688 sq.mtr. and Revenue Entry No.11855 came to be mutated on 30.06.2008 however, the same was rejected on 16.09.2008 as Chandrakant Bothra did not produce any evidence of he being an agriculturist. On 24.04.2008, Shri Bhagwanbhai Patel passed away.
Page 5 of 19 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 04:33:21 IST 2022C/CRA/199/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2022 On 29.10.2009, Regular Civil Suit No.694 of 2009 came to be instituted by the applicant-Trust against Ganpatji Shanaji, Bhalaji Shanaji, Hiraji Shanaji and Dasbhai Dahyabhai praying for a direction to execute a registered sale deed for the land being Revenue Survey Nos.526/3 and 526/4 seeking declaration and injunction.
3.5 It is the case of the respondents herein that they were not joined in the aforesaid suit, though a declaration was sought against execution of the registered sale deed of their land being Revenue Survey Nos.526/3 and 526/4. On 30.10.2009, names of the heirs of deceased Bhagwanbhai Jesingbhai Patel i.e. the respondents being Rameshbhai, Ambalal, Savitaben, Bhanuben and Gitaben came to be mutated in the revenue records for the land bearing Revenue Survey Nos.526/3 and 526/4. The said Revenue Entry No.12863 was certified on 29.01.2010. The Court below passed the status-quo order in Regular Civil Suit No.694 of 2009 on 19.04.2010 ex-parte.
3.6 On 13.08.2013, application below Exh.23 being compromise deed pursis came to be filed in Regular Civil Suit No.694 of 2009 and as per the compromise pursis, the heirs of the respondent No.1 have agreed to all the contentions raised in the said suit. On 25.08.2013, the Court passed an order below Exh.1 allowing Regular Civil Suit Page 6 of 19 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 04:33:21 IST 2022 C/CRA/199/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2022 No.694 of 2009 recording the consent pursis at Exh.23. It is pertinent to note that this compromise has been arrived in the Lok Adalat. On the basis of such compromise, Revenue Entry No.15293 came to be mutated in the revenue record of Revenue Survey Nos.526/3 and 526/4 recording the consent compromise passed in Regular Civil Suit No.694 of 2009. The said revenue entry was certified being Revenue Entry No.15293 on 20.05.2014. On coming to know about the said revenue entry, in September, 2015, the respondents filed Civil Misc. Application No.80 of 2015, who are the heirs of late Bhagwanbhai Jesingbhai Patel praying for recalling the order dated 25.08.2013 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.694 of 2009.
3.7 The applicant-Trust filed an application under the provision of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) in Civil Misc. Application No.80 of 2015, which was filed by the heirs of the respondent No.1. On 06.04.2018, an order is passed in Civil Suit No.833 of 1998 filed by the applicant-Trust, whereby the said civil suit is rejected as per the Order IX Rule 3 of the CPC i.e. dismissed for default. The heirs of the respondent No.1 herein thereafter had filed a withdrawal pursis with a liberty to approach the High Court or any other remedy challenging the order passed in Regular Page 7 of 19 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 04:33:21 IST 2022 C/CRA/199/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2022 Civil Suit No.694 of 2009. The said pursis was filed on 18.12.2019.
3.8 It is the case of the heirs of the respondent No.1 that the said pursis was filed by the concerned advocate, without obtaining their consent. On the very same day i.e. 18.12.2019, an order is passed below Exh.1 in Civil Misc. Application No.80 of 2015 allowing the plaintiff to withdraw the said application being Civil Misc. Application No.80 of 2015 i.e. present respondent No.1. Thereafter, the order is passed on 17.03.2021 in Civil Misc. Application (Leave to appeal) No.129 of 2020 allowing the application for condonation of delay caused in filing Regular Civil Suit No.694 of 2009 to challenge the compromise decree dated 25.08.2013. The present applicants also filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC praying to reject Civil Misc. Application (for Leave to Appeal) No.129 of 2020.
3.9 All the aforesaid applications have been decided as noted hereinabove, by the order dated 17.03.2021, whereby Civil Misc. Application (for Leave to Appeal) No.129 of 2020 filed by the heirs of the respondent No.1 seeking condonation of delay is allowed and accordingly, the application, for preferring leave to appeal is also allowed, whereas the application under Order Page 8 of 19 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 04:33:21 IST 2022 C/CRA/199/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2022 VII Rule 11 of the CPC filed by the present applicant in the leave to appeal application filed by the heirs of the respondent No.1 is rejected.
3.10 Being aggrieved, the applicant-Trust has filed the present revision applications under the provision of Section 115 of the CPC.
SUBMISSIONS
4. Learned advocate Mr.Sandip Patel appearing for the applicant-Trust has submitted that the Court below has fallen in error in rejecting the application filed by the applicant-Trust under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. It is submitted that no leave to appeal was required to be granted to the respondents herein as the same would be barred under the provision of Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC and also as the same is barred by delay. He has submitted that the land in question being Revenue Survey Nos.526/3 and 526/4 of Village Vejalpur is in possession of the applicant-Trust and they are running a school since more than 2-3 decades in the building constructed in the said survey numbers. He has submitted that now the respondent No.1 is claiming his ownership and title in the year 2019, which prima facie shows that respondent Nos.2 to 6 have initiated vexatious proceedings with mala fide intention. It is submitted that Page 9 of 19 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 04:33:21 IST 2022 C/CRA/199/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2022 the applicant-Trust as well as respondent Nos.2 to 6, who are the original owners, had also published a public notice in the newspaper and accordingly, thereafter, since no objection was received, the sale deed was entered into, after entering into the compromise in Regular Civil Suit No.694 of 2009. It is submitted that hence, after so many years, it was not open for the respondents to file the aforesaid application seeking leave to appeal challenging the judgement and decree, which has been passed on 25.08.2013, which has been passed on the compromise decree arrived at the Lok Adalat in Regular Civil Suit No.694 of 2009. Thus, it is submitted that the the applicant-Trust is entitled to execute the sale deed entered with respondent Nos.2 to 6 since they are the original land owners. Thus, it is submitted that the suit being Regular Civil Suit No.694 of 2009 was appropriately disposed of in view of the compromise and consent pursis filed before the Lok Adalat and the present respondent Nos.1.1 to 1.4 have no locus to file any application seeking leave to appeal. It is submitted that thus, the condonation of delay application filed by the heirs of the respondent No.1 could not have been entertained in any manner and the same ought to have been rejected.
5. Per contra, learned Senior Advocate Mr.Anshin Desai with learned advocate Mr.Shah appearing for the respondent Nos.1.1 to 1.4 i.e. the legal Page 10 of 19 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 04:33:21 IST 2022 C/CRA/199/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2022 heirs of late Bhagwanbhai Patel has submitted that in fact the applicant-Trust, in connivance with respondent Nos.2 to 6, have played fraud on the respondent Nos.1.1 to 1.4 by surreptitiously entering into the compromise in Civil Suit No.833 of 1998. It is submitted that behind the back of the heirs of deceased Bhagwanbhai Patel i.e. respondent No.1, the land bearing Revenue Survey Nos.526/3 and 526/4 is sought to be claimed and an entry has been mutated in view of the compromise decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.694 of 2009. He has submitted that the entire proceedings have been initiated and have been ended without the respondents being made party respondents. He has submitted that in fact the sale deed dated 17.09.1999 executed by late Bhagwanbhai Patel for the land bearing Revenue Survey No.526/3 admeasuring 137 sq.mtr. and Revenue Survey No.526/4 admeasuring 1,688 sq.mtr. between the owners and the defendants of Regular Civil Suit No.694 of 2009 was registered at the office of the Sub Registrar by Revenue Entry No.8213 on 06.01.2000 recording the sale transaction, which was certified on 10.03.2000.
5.1 While placing reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Dilboo (SMT) (DEAD) By Lrs. and Ors. vs. Dhanraji (SMT) (DEAD) and Ors., (2000) 7 S.C.C. 702, it is submitted that the applicant-Trust as well as respondent Nos.2 Page 11 of 19 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 04:33:21 IST 2022 C/CRA/199/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2022 to 6 can be attributed with the deemed knowledge of the sale deed, which has been registered and also mutation entry, which has been certified pursuant to the sale deed. It is thus submitted that even after such knowledge of the sale deed dated 17.09.1999, subsequently, the applicant- Trust instituted the suit being Regular Civil Suit No.694 of 2009 claiming the very same parcel of the land, which was sold by the legal heirs of deceased Bhagwanbhai Patel. It is submitted that names of the heirs of respondent No.1, after the death of Bhagwanbhai Patel were mutated in the revenue record of land bearing Revenue Survey Nos.526/3 and 526/4 by Entry No.12863, which was certified on 29.01.2010.
5.2 Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Desai, thus has submitted that the said suit being Regular Civil Suit No.694 of 2009 is decreed on the basis of the compromise, which has been entered behind the back of the respondent Nos.1.1 to 1.4 that too in the Lok Adalat and accordingly, on the basis of such compromise, the suit has been disposed of and the name of the applicant-Trust is mutated in the revenue records on 03.04.2014 for the land bearing Revenue Survey Nos.526/3 and 526/4 recording the consent compromise passed in Regular Civil Suit No.694 of 2009. He has submitted that accordingly, when they came to know about such entry being mutated on 03.04.2014, immediately in September, 2015 they Page 12 of 19 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 04:33:21 IST 2022 C/CRA/199/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2022 have filed Civil Misc. Application No.80 of 2015 praying for recalling the judgement and decree dated 25.08.2013 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.694 of 2009. Thus, it is submitted that it cannot be said that the delay has occurred and such application was immediately filed in the month of September, 2015 however, he has submitted that without obtaining the consent of the respondent No.1, the learned advocate engaged by him, filed a withdrawal pursis in Civil Misc. Application No.80 of 2015 for availing an alternative remedy to approach this Court or to file any other remedy and the Court below has passed the order dated 08.12.2019 below Exh.1 allowing the plaintiff i.e. respondent No.1 to withdraw the said Civil Misc. Application No.80 of 2015. It is submitted that thereafter on 01.10.2020, within a period of two months, the respondent Nos.1.1 to 1.4 filed Civil Misc. Application (for Leave to Appeal) No.129 of 2020 along with the application for condonation of delay caused in preferring Regular Civil Suit No.694 of 2009 in order to challenge the compromise decree dated 25.08.2013. It is submitted that it cannot be said that the delay has occurred and accordingly, after considering that fraud has been committed, the trial Court has passed the order allowing the aforesaid application in view of the provision of Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
Page 13 of 19 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 04:33:21 IST 2022C/CRA/199/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2022 5.3 Learned Senior Advocate has submitted that the application filed by the applicant-Trust under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC praying to reject Civil Misc. Application (for Leave to Appeal) No.129 of 2020 is absolutely misconceived since the same is not maintainable as the said provision would only apply to a plaint and not to an application for leave to appeal, and hence the same is precisely rejected by the Court below. Thus, it is urged that the impugned orders may not be disturbed.
CONCLUSION
6. The facts, which are established from the pleadings as well as the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties are as under:
6.1 Late Bhagwanbhai Patel purchased the land bearing Revenue Survey No.526/3 admeasuring 137 sq.mtr. and Revenue Survey No.526/4 admeasuring 1,688 sq.mtr. of Village Vejalpur, Dist.
Ahmedabad by a registered sale deed executed between him and one Shakriben Shanaji, Bhalaji Shanaji, Hiraji shanaji, Ganpatji Shanaji, Shantaben Dahyaji, Chanchiben Dahyaji and Dasbhai Dahyaji. In the present application Ganpati Shanaji Thakor is arraigned as respondent No.2, Bhalaji Shanaji Thakor is arraigned as respondent Page 14 of 19 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 04:33:21 IST 2022 C/CRA/199/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2022 No.3, legal heirs of Hiraji Thakor are arraigned as respondent Nos.4.1 to 4.3, and Dasbhai Dahyaji Thakor is arraigned as respondent No.5. The aforesaid sale deed was registered at Sr.No.2862 for consideration of Rs.3,27,300/- and Revenue Entry No.8213 came to be mutated on 06.01.2000 recording the sale deed, certified on 12.03.2000. The same is produced at page No.21 of the present application. Thus, the land bearing Revenue Survey Nos.526/3 and 526/4 was transferred in the name of late Bhagwanbhai Patel, who is represented by his legal heirs-respondent Nos.1.1 to 1.4.
6.2 It appears that thereafter, the present applicant-Trust instituted Regular Civil Suit No.694 of 2009 against Bhalaji Shanaji, Hiraji Shanaji, Ganpatji Shanaji and Dasbhai praying for a direction to execute the registered sale deed for land bearing Nos.526/3 and 526/4 for declaration and permanent injunction. Thus, for the land bearing Revenue Survey Nos.526/3 and 526/4, the suit has been instituted against the same sellers by the applicant-Trust. It is an admitted position and established fact that the heirs of the deceased Bhagwanbhai Patel i.e. respondent Nos.1.1 to 1.4 were not made party respondents in the said suit. Late Bhagwanbhai Patel passed away on 24.04.2008 and the names of his heirs, were mutated in the revenue record of Page 15 of 19 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 04:33:21 IST 2022 C/CRA/199/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2022 the land bearing Revenue Survey Nos.526/3 and 526/4 and such revenue entry has been certified on 29.01.2010.
6.3 Despite the aforesaid entries being certified, Regular Civil Suit was further proceeded and the civil Court also directed to maintain status-quo with regard to the suit property vide order dated 19.04.2010. The said order has been passed ex-parte. Be that as it may, even otherwise the heirs of deceased Bhagwanbhai were not made party respondents.
7. I may first deal with the contentions advanced by the applicant-Trust with regard to rejection of the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, which has been filed by the applicant-Trust seeking rejection of Civil Misc. Application (for Leave to Appeal) No.129 of 2020 filed by the respondent Nos.1.1 to 1.4.
8. It is pertinent to note that Order VII of the CPC prescribe the provisions relating to "plaint" and provision of Rule 11 of the Order VII pertains to "rejection of the plaint". Thus, the application filed by the applicant-Trust seeking rejection of Civil Misc. Application (for Leave to Appeal) No.129 of 2020 filed by the respondent Nos.1.1 to 1.4 is not maintainable as the application seeking leave to appeal cannot in any Page 16 of 19 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 04:33:21 IST 2022 C/CRA/199/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2022 manner be equated to a "plaint" of the suit hence, the application itself was misconceived and misdirected. Thus, the Court below is absolutely justified in rejecting the application filed by the applicant-Trust seeking rejection of the application for leave to appeal.
8.1 It is surprising to note that on 13.08.2013, the application below Exh.23, being compromise pursis, came to be filed in Regular Civil Suit No.694 of 2009. The compromise has been arrived in the Lok Adalat on 25.08.2015 and order is passed below Exh.1 allowing Regular Civil Suit No.694 of 2009 and the consent decree is passed. On 03.04.2014, Revenue Entry No.15293 came to be mutated in the revenue record in Revenue Survey Nos.526/3 and 526/4 recording consent terms passed in Regular Civil Suit No.694 of 2009 and entry is certified on 20.05.2014. As soon as the heirs of Bhagwanbhai i.e. respondent Nos.1.1 and 1.4 came to know about such entry, they filed application being Civil Misc. Application No.80 of 2015 in September, 2015 for recalling the judgement and decree dated 25.08.2013 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.694 of 2009. The said application was withdrawn on 18.12.2019 by tendering pursis to approach the High Court or to file any other remedy challenging the order passed in Regular Civil Suit No.694 of 2009. Accordingly, the order dated 18.12.2019 was Page 17 of 19 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 04:33:21 IST 2022 C/CRA/199/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2022 passed below Exh.1 in Civil Misc. Application No.80 of 2015 allowing the plaintiff i.e. respondent No.1 to withdraw the said application. The respondent Nos.1.1 to 1.4 and the applicants of Civil Misc. Application No.80 of 2015 have specifically averred that such application has been filed without obtaining any consent from the respondent No.1 by the concerned advocate. Thereafter, on 01.10.2020, Civil Misc. Application (for Leave to Appeal) No.129 of 2020 is filed along with the application seeking condonation of delay to challenge the compromise decree dated 25.08.2013. In the considered opinion of this Court that the delay in filing leave to appeal being Civil Misc. Application (for Leave to Appeal) No.129 of 2020 is sufficiently and satisfactorily explained. Thus, it cannot be said that the order passed by the Court below condoning the delay suffers from any non application of mind to the facts, more particularly in the wake of the fact that the respondents have alleged fraud in obtaining the consent decree.
9. I have perused the impugned order allowing the application seeking condonation of delay and leave to appeal. The Court below has very comprehensively dealt with all the facts and after considering the provision of Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act, has Page 18 of 19 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 04:33:21 IST 2022 C/CRA/199/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2022 precisely allowed the application seeking condonation of delay and also, as a sequel, has allowed the application seeking leave to appeal for challenging the judgement and decree dated 25.08.2013. 8th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur has meticulously considered all the aspects and facts with regard to the judgement and decree alleged to have been passed behind the back of the respondent Nos.1.1 to 1.4 on a compromise pursis arrived in the Lok Adalat, without making the respondent Nos.1.1 to 1.4 as party respondents.
10. Under the circumstances, all the present revision applications fail and the same are hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged. However, it is clarified that the observations made by this Court may not be construed favourable or adverse to either of the parties in the proceedings. No orders as to costs.
11. Registry to place a copy of this order in each of the connected matters.
Sd/- .
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
NVMEWADA
Page 19 of 19
Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 04:33:21 IST 2022