Gujarat High Court
Dilipbhai Naranbhai Patel vs Urmilaben Bhikhubhai Patel on 8 May, 2026
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1426/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1426 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2024
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1426 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
DILIPBHAI NARANBHAI PATEL
Versus
URMILABEN BHIKHUBHAI PATEL & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR A V NAIR for MR SAMIR B GOGDA(11306) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR HRIDAY BUCH for MR MASUDIQBAL H RATHOD(7919) for the
Defendant(s) No. 10,11
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,7,8,9
SERVED BY PUBLICATION IN NEWS for the Defendant(s) No. 4,5,6
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 08/05/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA)
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant - original plaintiff under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the Code'), Page 1 of 30 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Mon May 11 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:35:49 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1426/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 23.02.2024 passed by the 24th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara in Special Civil Suit No. 137 of 2022, whereby the application filed by the respective defendants at Exh. 13 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code was allowed, and the plaint of the plaintiff was rejected.
2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their original status in the suit.
3. The factual matrix of the present appeal is that the original plaintiff, Mr.Dilipbhai Naranbhai Patel, filed Special Civil Suit No. 137 of 2022 against defendant Nos. 1 to 11 seeking specific performance of an agreement and cancellation of the sale deed dated 02.01.2021 executed by defendant Nos.1 to 9 in favour of defendant Nos.10 and 11.
3.1 As per the case of the original plaintiff before the trial Court, defendant Nos. 1 to 9 were the original owners of the land situated at Block/Survey No.607/A Page 2 of 30 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Mon May 11 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:35:49 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1426/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined admeasuring 01-44-83 Hec-Arre-Sq.m. in Account No.39 of Village Sayajipura, Sub-Registrar District Vadodara. 3.2 It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant Nos. 1 to 9 intended to sell the said land, and the sale consideration was mutually agreed at the rate of Rs. 800 per Sq. ft. At the time of execution of a Token Agreement dated 05.02.2016, an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- was paid to defendant Nos. 1 to 9, and subsequently, an additional amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- was paid, totaling Rs. 8,00,000/- towards part consideration.
3.3 Thereafter, it came to the knowledge of the plaintiff that defendant Nos. 1 to 9 had executed a sale deed dated 02.01.2021 in favour of defendant Nos. 10 and 11 in respect of the suit land. It is further stated that defendant Nos. 10 and 11 applied before the Collector for conversion of the land from agricultural to non- agricultural use; however, the same came to be rejected on 21.10.2020. Upon noticing of this, the plaintiff filed objections before the Collector's office. Page 3 of 30 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Mon May 11 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:35:49 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1426/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined 3.4 On the basis of the aforesaid facts and allegations, the original plaintiff instituted the suit seeking, inter alia, specific performance of the Token Agreement dated 05.02.2016 executed between the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 9, as well as cancellation of the sale deed dated 02.01.2021 executed by defendant Nos.1 to 9 in favour of defendant Nos. 10 and 11, along with other consequential reliefs. The said suit was registered as Special Civil Suit No. 137 of 2022.
3.5 Upon issuance of summons, the defendants appeared and filed an application below Exh. 13 under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code for rejection of the plaint. The said application was primarily based on the ground that the present plaintiff, along with one Mr. Rajesh Ambalal Patel, had earlier executed an agreement to sale dated 11.04.2016 in respect of the same suit land and had jointly filed Special Civil Suit No. 92 of 2018 before the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara, seeking specific performance. Page 4 of 30 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Mon May 11 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:35:49 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1426/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined 3.6 Subsequently, the dispute between the parties came to be amicably settled. In pursuance of the said settlement, the agreement to sale dated 11.04.2016, which was executed jointly by the present plaintiff and Mr. Rajesh Ambalal Patel with the original owners- defendant Nos. 1 to 9, was cancelled by executing a registered deed of cancellation dated 21.10.2020. Thereafter, the present plaintiff and the said Rajesh Ambalal Patel submitted a pursis in Special Civil Suit No. 92 of 2018 for unconditional withdrawal of the said suit. The said pursis was duly signed by both of them. Pursuant to the said pursis, the learned 19 th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara passed an order, and the suit came to be disposed of as withdrawn unconditionally by order dated 07.11.2020 below Exh. 34. 3.7 It was stated in the application that the plaintiff had suppressed material facts from the Court, inasmuch as the plaintiff had previously filed a suit for specific Page 5 of 30 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Mon May 11 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:35:49 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1426/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined performance in respect of the same suit land, which subsequently came to be withdrawn.
3.8 It was further submitted that, pursuant to the deed of cancellation of the agreement to sell dated 11.04.2016, executed on 21.10.2020, the plaintiff and Mr. Rajesh Ambalal Patel ceased to have any right, title, or interest in the suit property. Despite this, the plaintiff, by suppressing material facts and not disclosing the true and correct position, instituted the suit for specific performance against the original owners in respect of the same property. It was also submitted that the Token Agreement dated 05.02.2016, as relied upon by the plaintiff, was valid only for a period of 28 months. However, the present suit came to be filed on 14.06.2022, and therefore, the same is barred by limitation. 3.9 On these grounds, the defendants preferred an application below Exh. 13 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code for rejection of the plaint. The learned trial Court, after hearing the learned advocates for the respective Page 6 of 30 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Mon May 11 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:35:49 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1426/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined parties, was pleased to allow the said application by order dated 23.02.2024 and rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code.
3.10 Being aggrieved by the said order of rejection of the plaint, the present appeal has been preferred.
4. Submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties for the appellant - original plaintiff:
4.1 Heard learned advocate Mr.A. V. Nair appearing for learned advocate Mr.Samir B. Gogda for the appellant and learned advocate Mr.Hriday Buch appearing for learned advocate Mr.Masudiqbal H. Rathod for Defendant Nos.10 and 11.
4.2 It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Nair, appearing on behalf of the learned advocate Mr.Samir B Gogda appearing for the appellant-original plaintiff, that the impugned Judgment and Decree passed by the Page 7 of 30 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Mon May 11 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:35:49 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1426/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined learned trial Court is erroneous, bad in law, and therefore deserves to be set aside.
4.3 It is further submitted that the learned trial Court has acted beyond the limited scope of jurisdiction exercisable under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code by overlooking the pleadings made in the plaint and by accepting the disputed averments on facts made by the defendants in their application and written statement. 4.4 It is submitted that the learned trial Court has erred in law to hold that the plaintiff had suppressed material facts, without there being any evidence on record, and merely relying upon the pleadings of the defendants made in the written statement, and overlooking the facts pleaded in the plaint. It is submitted that the plaintiff has clearly stated in the plaint that a Token Agreement was executed on 05.02.2016, under which the balance sale-
consideration was to be paid within a period of 28 months. It is further submitted that certain further payments were also made by the plaintiff, however, the Page 8 of 30 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Mon May 11 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:35:49 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1426/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined learned trial Court has failed to appreciate this material fact.
4.5 It is submitted that the cause of action arose only after 05.06.2018, and the plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of the relevant statutory period as well as exclusion of the period of the COVID-19 pandemic period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, for the purpose of limitation. Therefore, the suit is within limitation. 4.6 It is further submitted that while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court is required to consider only the averments made in the plaint and the documents annexed thereto, and not the defence raised by the defendants. 4.7 In the present case, it is specifically pleaded in the plaint that the Token Agreement was executed on 05.02.2016, an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- was paid as earnest money, and the sale consideration was fixed at Rs. 800 per Sq. ft. for the suit property admeasuring 14,483 Sq. Mtrs.
Page 9 of 30 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Mon May 11 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:35:49 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1426/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined 4.8 It is further submitted that the plaintiff has also sought cancellation of the subsequent sale deed dated 02.01.2021 executed by defendant Nos. 1 to 9 in favour of defendant Nos. 10 and 11. It is stated that the said sale deed came to the knowledge of the plaintiff only on 17.05.2022, and therefore, the relief for cancellation of the sale deed is also within limitation. 4.9 It is thus, submitted that when at least one of the reliefs claimed in the suit is within limitation and is a triable issue, the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be allowed.
5. Submissions made by the learned advocates for the respondents.
5.1 Heard learned advocate Mr. Hriday Buch, assisted by learned advocate Mr. Masudiqbal Rathod, appearing for respondent Nos. 10 and 11. It is submitted that there Page 10 of 30 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Mon May 11 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:35:49 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1426/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined is material suppression of facts by the plaintiff in the plaint.
5.2 It is submitted that in respect of the same suit land, the plaintiff along with one Mr. Rajesh Ambalal Patel had earlier instituted Special Civil Suit No. 92 of 2018 seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 11.04.2016 executed by the original landowners in favour of the present plaintiff and the said Rajesh Ambalal Patel. The said suit was subsequently withdrawn unconditionally on 07.11.2020.
5.3 It is submitted that the aforesaid material fact regarding filing and unconditional withdrawal of the earlier suit has not been disclosed in the present plaint. According to the respondents, this amounts to material suppression of facts. It is further submitted that by way of clever drafting, the plaintiff has deliberately withheld this material fact so as to avoid rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code.
Page 11 of 30 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Mon May 11 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:35:49 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1426/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined 5.4 It is therefore, submitted that the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the plaint on the ground of material suppression.
5.5 In support of his submissions, learned advocate Mr. Buch has relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jagdishbhai Haribhai Patel through POA Shah Rajeshkumar Chandravadan Vs. LH of Decd. Ramanlal Shankarlal Patel and Ors., rendered in First Appeal No. 2541 of 2020 decided on 02.09.2025.
6. Having considered the rival submissions of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the Judgment of the learned trial Court, the plaint, and the documents on record, the following points arise for consideration before this Court:
i. Whether the appellant proves that the alleged Token Agreement dated 05.02.2016 is a valid and enforceable agreement to sale, and whether it Page 12 of 30 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Mon May 11 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:35:49 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1426/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined constitutes an executable contract? ii. Whether the appellant proves that the learned trial Court has erred in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground of suppression of material facts?
iii. What Order?
7. My findings are as under:
1. In the negative.
2. In the negative.
3. As per the final order.
8. Findings and Conclusion
8.1 Issue No. 1
8.1.1 The short facts of the case have already been
narrated. The first issue relates to whether the Token Agreement produced at Mark 4/3, stated to have been executed on 05.02.2016, constitutes a valid and enforceable contract capable of being specifically Page 13 of 30 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Mon May 11 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:35:49 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1426/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined performed.
8.1.2 In this regard, it is necessary to consider the recitals of the document at Mark 4/3, which is titled as a "Token Agreement" executed on 05.02.2016. From the contents of the said document, it is revealed that it pertains to land situated at District Vadodara, Moje Village Sariaje, bearing Survey No./Block No. 607/A/2, admeasuring 14,480 Sq. ft.
8.1.3 It is stated therein that there was an oral understanding between the parties that the original plaintiff, Mr. Dilipbhai Naranbhai Patel, would purchase the said land at the rate of Rs. 800 per sq. mtr. Further, clause 4 of the said document provides that the Token Agreement shall remain valid for 28 months. 8.1.4 On a careful reading of the document, it appears that the said instrument is not a concluded agreement to sale, but merely a token receipt acknowledging payment of earnest money, and Page 14 of 30 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Mon May 11 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:35:49 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1426/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined contemplates execution of a further formal agreement to sale in future, with balance consideration to be paid thereafter.
8.1.5 Thus, the document at Mark 4/3 does not create any concluded contractual obligations capable of specific performance. It is merely in the nature of an initial understanding/receipt of earnest money, and not a complete or enforceable agreement to sell under the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
8.1.6. Therefore, in absence of a concluded contract, no decree for specific performance can be granted on the basis of such Token Agreement. Accordingly, Issue No. 1 is answered in the negative.
8.2 Issue No. 2:
8.2.1 With regard to the issue pertaining to rejection of plaint on the ground of suppression of material facts, it is not in dispute that the present suit is based upon the alleged Token Agreement dated 05.02.2016 executed by Page 15 of 30 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Mon May 11 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:35:49 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1426/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined the original owners in favour of the original plaintiff.
8.2.2 It further emerges from the record that thereafter, on 11.04.2016, the present appellant - original plaintiff, along with one Mr. Rajesh Ambalal Patel, had executed another agreement to sale in respect of the same suit property with the original owners.
8.2.3 It is also an admitted fact that for enforcement of the said agreement dated 11.04.2016, Special Civil Suit No. 92 of 2018 was instituted before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vadodara, wherein the original plaintiff was plaintiff No. 1 and the said Rajesh Ambalal Patel was plaintiff No. 2. The defendants therein included the original defendant Nos. 1 to 9.
8.2.4 It is further undisputed that the said Special Civil Suit No. 92 of 2018 was unconditionally withdrawn by filing a pursis at Exh. 34, and by order dated
07.11.2020, the learned 19th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara disposed of the said suit as withdrawn. Page 16 of 30 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Mon May 11 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:35:49 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1426/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined 8.2.5 It is also borne out from the record that subsequently, on 21.10.2020, the original plaintiff and the said Rajesh Ambalal Patel executed a registered deed of cancellation of the agreement to sell dated 11.04.2016. 8.2.6 Thus, it is evident that the original plaintiff was a party to earlier proceedings relating to the same suit property, which was ultimately withdrawn unconditionally, and the subsequent agreement to sale also stood cancelled.
8.2.7 However, the present plaint does not disclose the filing of Special Civil Suit No. 92 of 2018, its unconditional withdrawal, or the cancellation deed dated 21.10.2020. This omission is material in nature. 8.2.8 Though it is well settled proposition of law that while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, only the averments in the plaint and the documents annexed thereto are to be considered, and not Page 17 of 30 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Mon May 11 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:35:49 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1426/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined the defence of the defendants, at the same time, suppression of material facts going to the root of the matter cannot be ignored.
8.2.9 In the present case, the non-disclosure of earlier litigation and cancellation of subsequent agreement amounts to suppression of material facts, which has a direct bearing on the maintainability of the suit.
8.2.10 In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Jagdishbhai Haribhai Patel through POA Shah Rajeshkumar Chandravadan (supra), wherein the principles relating to suppression of material facts and maintainability of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code have been considered.
9. Special Civil Suit No. 92 of 2018 was disposed of as unconditionally withdrawn by the original plaintiff. The present plaintiff was also a party to the said suit. Further, Page 18 of 30 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Mon May 11 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:35:49 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1426/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined the present plaintiff and one Mr.Rajeshbhai Ambalal Patel, on 11.04.2016, executed an agreement to sale with the owner. For specific performance of the said agreement dated 11.04.2016 (which is subsequent to 05.02.2016), a suit was filed, which came to be unconditionally withdrawn. In the said suit, the present plaintiff was plaintiff No.1 and Rajeshbhai Ambalal Patel was plaintiff No.2.
10. Further, it is brought to the notice of this Court that a settlement was arrived at between the parties and, subsequently, on 21.10.2020, the original plaintiff and Rajeshbhai Ambalal Patel executed a deed of cancellation of the agreement to sale dated 11.04.2016. Thus, on 21.10.2020, the present plaintiff along with Rajeshbhai Ambalal Patel cancelled the agreement to sale dated 11.04.2016, which was executed with the original land owners, subsequent to the alleged Mark 4/3 Token Agreement dated 05.02.2016. Apparently, the said Token Agreement is not an agreement to sale. Page 19 of 30 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Mon May 11 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:35:49 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1426/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined
11. Further, it is an admitted position that there is not a whisper about Special Civil Suit No. 92 of 2018, the subsequent agreement to sale dated 11.04.2016, and the withdrawal of Special Civil Suit No. 92 of 2018 on 07.11.2020, in the present proceedings. It is not in dispute that in the earlier Special Civil Suit No. 92 of 2018, the original plaintiff was plaintiff No.1 and Rajeshbhai Ambalal Patel was plaintiff No.2, and the original defendant Nos. 1 to 9 were also defendants in that suit. The said suit was filed for the same suit land and was withdrawn unconditionally.
12. Considering this fact, there is no doubt that, at the time of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, only the averments in the plaint and the documents annexed thereto are required to be considered by the Court, and neither the defence nor the contents of the application preferred by the defendant for rejection of the plaint can be looked into. However, as there is material suppression by the plaintiff, who by smart and Page 20 of 30 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Mon May 11 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:35:49 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1426/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined clever drafting has filed the present suit despite the subsequent agreement to sale having already been cancelled, the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the suit land. This material fact has not been disclosed and amounts to suppression of material facts.
13. In this regard, it is required to consider the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jagdishbhai Haribhai Patel through POA Shah Rajeshkumar Chandravadan (supra), wherein the Division Bench has held as under:
"24. It is by now well-settled that the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code is to ensure that frivolous and mischievous suits or a suits without merit, are weeded out at the threshold. In the celebrated judgment of the Apex Court in the case of T. Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal reported in (1977) 4 SCC 467 it has been held that if the suit is cleverly drafted to bring within the limitation, it should be nipped in the bud. This is the classic case, that requires to be considered and determined at the Page 21 of 30 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Mon May 11 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:35:49 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1426/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined threshold. Conscious omission would not permit any party to contend that, at the time of deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11, only and only the plaint and the documents accompanying it can be considered. Clearly, instances of abuse of process of the Court would cover matters where there is suppression of material fact as on the date of institution of the proceedings. In the case of Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (supra), the Apex Court has observed that the Court, must be vigilant against any camouflage or suppression, and determine whether the litigation is utterly vexatious, and an abuse of the process of the Court. Paragraphs 23.2, 23.3, 23.4 and 24.4 of the judgment, are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-
23.2 The remedy under Order VII Rule 11 is an independent and special remedy, wherein the Court is empowered to summarily dismiss a suit at the threshold, without proceeding to record evidence, and conducting a trial, on the basis of the evidence adduced, if it is satisfied that the action should be Page 22 of 30 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Mon May 11 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:35:49 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1426/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined terminated on any of the grounds contained in this provision.
23.3 The underlying object of Order VII Rule 11 (a) is that if in a suit, no cause of action is disclosed, or the suit is barred by limitation under Rule 11 (d), the Court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in the suit.
In such a case, it would be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation, so that further judicial time is not wasted.
23.4 In Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, 1986 Supp SCC 315, this Court held that the whole purpose of conferment of powers under this provision is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless, and bound to prove abortive, should not be permitted to waste judicial time of the court, in the following words:
"12....The whole purpose of conferment of such power is to ensure that a litigation which is meaningless, and Page 23 of 30 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Mon May 11 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:35:49 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1426/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined bound to prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time of the Court, and exercise the mind of the respondent. The sword of Damocles need not be kept hanging over his head unnecessarily without point or purpose. Even if an ordinary civil litigation, the Court readily exercises the power to reject a plaint, if it does not disclose any cause of action."
24.4 If, however, by clever drafting of the plaint, it has created the illusion of a cause of action, this Court in Madanuri Sri Ramachandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal11 held that it should be nipped in the bud, so that bogus litigation will end at the earliest stage. The Court must be vigilant against any camouflage or suppression, and determine whether the litigation is utterly vexatious, and an abuse of the process of the court."
Page 24 of 30 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Mon May 11 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:35:49 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1426/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined
25. Yet in another judgment in the case of Rajhans Infracon vs. Santosh Rameshbhai Rathod (supra), this Court, has succinctly considered the consequences of suppression of material fact while filing the suit. This Court has held and observed that it would be obligatory for the plaintiff to plead the cause of action with full material particulars, documents, facts in issue and the relevant facts to his knowledge, information and belief. It has been further held and observed that the obligation is cast upon the plaintiff to explain in the pleadings that the plaint does not suffer from material bar. It has been held and observed that the plaint would not be saved by clever drafting, therefore, pleading of all the facts and production of the relevant documents which may be in the knowledge and information of the plaintiff is an obligation cast upon it and it is not the matter of choice of the plaintiff. The Court, therefore, may be justified in comprehending such concealed facts and documents, when brought to its notice, for an order under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code and in such an eventuality the plaintiff cannot accuse the Court being unfair to him. Paragraphs 6.1, 6.2 of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-
Page 25 of 30 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Mon May 11 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:35:49 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1426/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined "6.1 Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC itself is a sufficient notice to the plaintiff for non-
sustenance of the plaint for the defects contemplated therein. It would, therefore, be obligatory for the plaintiff to plead the cause of action with full material particulars, documents, facts, facts in issue and the relevant facts to his knowledge, information and belief. It would be obligatory on the part of the plaintiff to explain in the pleadings that the relief claimed is properly valued or that it has been corrected within time allowed by the Court. It would also be obligatory for the plaintiff to satisfy the Court that the plaint is written upon sufficient stamp or that requisite stamp paper is supplied within the time allowed by the Court.
6.2 It would also be obligatory for the plaintiff to explain in the pleadings that the plaint does not suffer from a legal bar. It would be obligatory for the plaintiff to comprehend the relevant legal provisions and to lay a foundation of facts explaining in detail how the plaint does not suffer a legal bar. It is settled legal position that the plaint would not be saved by clever drafting, therefore, pleading of all the facts and production of the relevant documents which may be in the Page 26 of 30 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Mon May 11 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:35:49 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1426/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined knowledge and information of the plaintiff is an obligation cast upon it and it is not the matter of choice of the plaintiff. The Court, therefore, may be justified in comprehending such concealed facts and documents, when brought to its notice, for an order under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC and in such an eventuality the plaintiff cannot accuse the Court being unfair to him."
26. In the case on hand, indisputably, the plaintiff was very much party to all the proceedings; however, the plaintiff has for the reasons best known to him, selectively produced only the entries, omitting to produce the orders passed by the revenue authorities. To name a few, the order of the Special Secretary, Revenue Department, which was adverse to the plaintiff is not forming part of the documents. The Special Secretary, Revenue Department, was of the opinion that while deciding the legality and validity of the entry, it was impermissible for the Mamlatdar and the Deputy Collector to have gone into the merits and demerits of the issue otherwise governed by other laws. The Special Secretary, Revenue Department was of the opinion that the entry could not have been quashed. The matter was remanded to Page 27 of 30 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Mon May 11 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:35:49 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1426/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined the Mamlatdar & ALT who had passed an order dated 04.08.2004 which again was not favourable to the plaintiff and hence, not forming part of the documents together with the plaint.
29. Therefore, the plaintiff, clearly held back rather suppressed the material facts. Omission to place on record the documents, which are not favourable and selectively placing the favourable documents, is nothing, but a mischievous attempt on the part of the plaintiff to come out of the lethal bar of limitation. Having not produced and as stated earlier to contend that at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, only the plaint and the documents together with the plaint, have to be considered, is nothing, but an attempt on the part of the plaintiff to overcome the omission and gross lapse of not producing the relevant documents on the record."
14. In view of the aforesaid decision of this Hon'ble Court, it is an admitted position that the original plaintiff has no right, title, or interest in the suit land, as he has suppressed material facts. In particular, the plaintiff has failed to disclose that in respect of the very same suit Page 28 of 30 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Mon May 11 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:35:49 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1426/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined land, Special Civil Suit No. 92 of 2018 was earlier instituted, in which the present plaintiff was also a party, and the said suit was subsequently withdrawn unconditionally. This material fact has not been disclosed in the present plaint, thereby amounting to clear suppression of material facts and omission to place on record relevant pleadings and documents.
15. Considering the aforesaid decision and the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, we are of the considered view that no error has been committed by the learned trial Court in allowing the application preferred by the defendants under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and in rejecting the plaint. We do not find any error of law warranting interference with the impugned order. Accordingly, Issue No. 2 is answered in the negative.
16. We are of the considered view that no interference is called for.
Page 29 of 30 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Mon May 11 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:35:49 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1426/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/05/2026 undefined
17. The present Appeal No.1426 of 2024 is hereby dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the Civil Application (For Stay) No.1 of 2024 does not survive and is accordingly disposed of.
18. Decree to be drawn accordingly.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) (L. S. PIRZADA, J) STANCY GOMES Page 30 of 30 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Mon May 11 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 21:35:49 IST 2026