Gujarat High Court
Shivlal Lallubhai vs Benaben Wd/O Naranbhai Parbhubhai on 1 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/259/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 259 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
SHIVLAL LALLUBHAI & ORS.
Versus
BENABEN WD/O NARANBHAI PARBHUBHAI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RUTVIJ S OZA(5594) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
MR ARPIT A KAPADIA(3974) for the Opponent(s) No. 1,10,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
MR P B KHAMBHOLJA(5730) for the Opponent(s) No. 30,32,34,36,37
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Opponent(s) No.
11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,31,33,35,38,39,40
,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 01/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties the matter is taken up for final hearing. Learned advocate Mr.Arpit A.Kapadia and learned advocate Mr.P.B.Khambholja waives service of notice rule on behalf of the respective respondents.
2. For the sake of brevity and convenience, the parties are referred to as per their original status in the suit.
Page 1 of 41 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 23:07:33 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/259/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined
3. The present Civil Revision Application challenges the order passed in Regular Civil Suit No.629 of 2023, whereby the 5 th Additional Civil Judge, Surat has rejected application filed under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "the Code") vide Exhibit 27 on 06.05.2024.
The dispute- in brief:
4. The plaintiff has filed Civil Suit No.629 of 2023 on the ground that the suit property belonged to their grandfather Prabhubhai Kanjibhai, who expired on 30.05.1942, and after the death of Prabhubhai Kanjibhai, the surviving legal heirs, were his wife Jiviben, who expired on 27.08.1970 and his son Naranbhai Prabhubhai, Lalubhai Prabhubhai, Thakorbhai Prabhubhai daughters Maniben Prabhubhai, Devkuvarben Prabhubhai and Bhaniben Prabhubhai.
5. It is the case of the plaintiff that the father of plaintiff nos.2 to 10 and husband of plaintiff no.1- Naranbhai Prabhubhai, expired on 29.03.1998, and being the legal heirs of Narayanbhai, who is the son of Prabhubhai Kanjibhai, the plaintiffs will have a right in the suit property, and therefore the suit that has been filed by the plaintiffs is for claiming right of ownership in the suit property, that the names of the plaintiffs be entered in the revenue record with respect to the Page 2 of 41 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 23:07:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/259/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined suit property, the plaintiffs have also filed the suit for partition and for injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property and therefore the father of defendant no.1, legal heirs of Lallubhai Prabhubhai, i.e. son of Prabhubhai and brother of Narayanbhai Prabhubhai could not be considered as the owner of the suit property as the suit property belong to Prabhubhai, and therefore any document that has been executed with respect to ownership of Lallubhai Prabhubhai cannot be considered.
6. It is the case of the plaintiffs that on the death of the wife of Lallubhai, a release deed was executed by his daughter Laxmiben Lallubhai, on 09.02.2007, whereby she has relinquished her right from the suit property and a mutation entry to that effect has been entered by entry no.1326 on 06.03.2007, and in view of the fact that a Public Notice was issued with respect to the suit property and therefore the plaintiffs were aware of the suit transaction somewhere around 10.09.2023, the plaintiffs filed objection to the said Public Notice and filed the Civil Suit for the reliefs as stated herein above. The defendant appeared in the said suit and filed application under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code on the ground that the plaintiff does not have any cause of action to file the suit and that the suit is barred on the ground of limitation, in view of the fact that the name of Page 3 of 41 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 23:07:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/259/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined Prabhubhai Kanjibhai was reflected in the revenue record for the year 1937-38 and 1941-42 as a protected tenant, but the fact remains that the name of Late Lallubhai Prabhubhai was entered in the revenue record for subject land vide Entry No.302 dated 15.12.1947, as a protected tenant under the provisions of Bombay Tenancy, Agricultural Lands Act, 1947 (herein after referred to as "the Tenancy Act") and thereafter, proceedings under Section 32G and 32M of Tenancy Act, when initiated and upon conclusion of the aforesaid proceeding Lallubhai Prabhubhai had paid the amount of ₹6,445/- and thereafter, mutation entry no.483 dated 05.08.1961 was recorded and in the name of Lallubhai Prabhubhai and the said fact is recorded in the revenue record by mutation entry no.674 dated 22.12.1971, and therefore by way of the suit the plaintiff is challenging the revenue entry executed in the year 1961 and filing a suit challenging the registered sale deed where some of the legal heir of Lallubhai Prabhubhai have relinquished her right in the suit property in the year 2007 and therefore, the plaint is hopelessly time barred and therefore an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code was filed by the defendant nos.1 to 8 and 10 and after considering the plaint and the documents with the plaint, the Trial Court rejected the said application, hence the present Civil Revision Application.Page 4 of 41 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 23:07:33 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/259/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined Submission of the petitioner-defendant
7. Learned advocate for the defendant Mr.Rutvij Oza has mainly contended that from the bare reading of the plaint and documents annexed with the plaint, it can be clearly established that the plaint is barred by law and is required to be rejected. It has been argued by the learned advocate for the defendant that the entire suit filed by the plaintiff is based on the fact that suit property belonged to Prabhubhai Kanjibhai, and therefore on his death on 30.05.1942, the suit property will be inherited by his wife Jiviben and his six children, but if the entire plaint and documents annexed with the plaint are perused, it can be clearly established that the name of Prabhubhai Kanjibhai was in the revenue record as protected tenant and thereafter by revenue entry no.483, dated 05.08.1961, the name of Lallubhai Prabhubhai was entered in the revenue record.
8. It has been argued by the learned advocate for the defendant that if paragraph no.4 of the plaint is perused, the plaintiff has clearly stated that the grandfather of the plaintiffs i.e. Prabhubhai Kanjibhai was a protected tenant and his name was stated as a protected tenant in the revenue record in the year 1937-38, therefore, it is not the case of the plaintiff that Prabhubhai Kanjibhai was the owner of the property but the fact remains that Prabhubhai Kanjibhai was a protected tenant Page 5 of 41 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 23:07:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/259/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined under the Tenancy Act. The plaintiffs have produced the 7/12 extract of the suit property, from which, it can be clearly established that on 05.08.1961 by revenue entry no.483, the suit property was transferred as owner in favour of Lallubhai Prabhubhai, under the Tenancy Act and installments were to be paid by Lallubhai Prabhubhai and subject to payment of the said installments, Lallubhai Prabhubhai would be the owner of the suit property under the Tenancy Act and thereafter, by revenue entry no.674 dated 22.12.1971, the suit property came in the hands of Lallubhai Prabhubhai as an owner after he paid an amount ₹6,445/- and therefore, since 05.08.1961, defendant no.1's father Lallubhai Prabhubhai had become the owner of the suit property and was declared as the owner of the suit property by revenue entry nos.483 and 674.
9. Moreover, it has also been argued that the relinquishment deed by which, one of the the legal heirs of Lallubhai has relinquished her right in favour of the other legal heirs of Lallubhai is a registered document of the year 2007, and it is not the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiffs were not aware of the said documents, more particularly revenue entry of the year 1961 and 1971, i.e. entry no.483 and 674 and in view of the fact that the relinquishment deed dated 09.02.2007 is already muted by way of mutation entry no.1326 and therefore the same being a registered document, it is a deemed knowledge and therefore also the plaint is hopelessly time Page 6 of 41 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 23:07:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/259/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined barred.
10. With respect to the fact that the plaintiff also has claimed injunction with respect to the possession of the suit property, it has been argued by learned advocate for the defendant that the main reliefs sought by the plaintiff in the suit is for claiming ownership with respect to the suit property and for cancellation of the relinquishment deed dated 09.02.2007 and the prayer for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff can be said to be consequential relief and therefore, once the plaintiff has failed to get any substantive relief of cancellation of relinquishment deed, the relief of injunction can be said to be consequential relief and in view of the said fact, it has been argued that if the main relief of the plaintiff stands barred by time, the other ancillary relief claimed therein also falls down and therefore the Trial Court could not have rejected the application filed below exhibit 27 under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code and therefore it has been argued that the present Revision Application requires to be allowed and the plaint is required to be rejected.
11. With respect to the fact that the details of revenue entry no.483 and entry no.674 can be looked into as it is a settled law that as the said document are referred to in the plaint and Page 7 of 41 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 23:07:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/259/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined documents annexed with the plaint, the said documents gets incorporated by reference in the plaint and therefore, the said document i.e. revenue entry nos.483 and 674 can be looked into as the same are referred to in the plaint, more particularly vide document 4/8 and 4/10.
12. Moreover, it has been argued by the learned advocate for the defendant that the plaintiff himself has admitted in the plaint that the suit property has been purchased by the father of defendant no.1 i.e. Lallubhai Prabhubhai and therefore it cannot be said that the suit property was an ancestral property belonging to Prabhunhai Kanjibhai, in view of the fact that at paragraph 7, the plaintiff himself has admitted that after the death of Prabhubhai Kanjibhai, the father of defendant no.1 i.e. Lallubhai Kanjibhai has purchased the suit property. The plaintiff has stated that the suit property has been purchased by Lallubhai Prabhunhai from the joint income of the family, but neither any details on the said fact has been produced by the plaintiff, nor there are any pleading to the effect that there was a joint family business and that the suit property was purchased from the said joint family business.
13. In view of the said fact, it has been argued that the present Revision Application be allowed and the plaint be rejected.
Page 8 of 41 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 23:07:33 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/259/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined Submissions of learned advocate for the plaintiff:
14. Learned advocate for the plaintiff has argued that while deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, the Court will only have to look at the plaint and documents annexed with the plaint and it is a categorical statement made by the plaintiff that the plaintiff came to know about the fact of relinquishment deed, only when the public notice was issued in the year 2023, and therefore the suit that has been filed by the plaintiff is within the period of limitation.
15. The learned advocate for the plaintiff has also argued that if the averments of the plaint are perused, it is a specific case of the plaintiff that the suit property belonged to Prabhubhai Kanjibhai, who has expired in the year 1942 and being legal heir of Prabhubhai Kanjibhai, the plaintiff will have right, title interest in the suit property and therefore the suit that has been filed by the plaintiff is within the period of limitation.
16. The learned advocate for the plaintiff has also argued that if the averments of the plaint are taken into consideration, it cannot be said that the plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation in view of the fact that the suit property always belonged to Page 9 of 41 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 23:07:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/259/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined Prabhubhai Kanjibhai and neither the father of the plaintiff, nor the plaintiff have in anyway Released/relinquished their rights in the suit property and after the death Prabhubhai Kanjibhai, the suit property was muted in the name of Lallubhai Prabhubhai, in view of the fact that he was the eldest son of Prabhubhai Kanjibhai, and therefore his name was muted in the revenue record, but the fact remains that Lallubhai Prabhubhai was not the only legal heir of Prabhubhai Kanjibhai and therefore the Trial Court has rightly rejected the application under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 and unless oral evidence is led, the Trial Court cannot decide the said suit.
17. In view of the same it has been argued that the present revision application be rejected.
Analysis:
18. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having considered the plaint and documents annexed with the plaint, the following are undisputed facts that emerges from the plaint:
a. The grandfather of the plaintiff Prabhubhai Kanjibhai expired on 30.05.1942.
b. The plaint specifically states that Prabhubhai Kanjibhai was Page 10 of 41 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 23:07:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/259/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined a protected tenant under the provisions of said Act. c. It also comes on record that name of Lallubhai was initially entered in the revenue record as a protected tenant after the death of Prabhubhai Kanjibhai by revenue entry no.483, dated 05.06.1961, the name of Lallubhai Prabhubhai was entered in the revenue record.
d. In view of the tenancy laws, Lallubhai Prabhubhai became the owner of the property on payment of the amount as stated in entry no.483, which has been passed subsequent to the Order dated 31.05.1961 (Order dated 01.04.1997). e. By revenue entry number 674, the name of Lallubhai Prabhubhai has been entered as an owner of the property on 22.12.1971.
f. The father of plaintiff nos.2 to 10 and the husband of defendant no.1 expired on 29.03.1998 and during his lifetime, he has neither challenged the revenue entry nos.483 and or 674 and or claimed any rights in the suit property. g. Lallubhai Prabhubhai expired in the year 1992. The legal heir of Lallubhai, i.e. Laxmiben Lallubhai relinquieshed her right in the suit property by release deed executed on 09.02.2007.
h. The plaintiff in the plaint has stated at para 7 that in the year 1963, Lallubhai Prabhubhai has purchased the suit property from the joint family income.
Page 11 of 41 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 23:07:33 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/259/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined
19. The family tree of the plaintiff is under:
Legal Heirs of Prabhubhai Kanjibhai Page 12 of 41 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 23:07:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/259/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined Page 13 of 41 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 23:07:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/259/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined
20. In view of the aforesaid facts, it has become clear that the name of the father of defendant no.1 Lallubhai Prabhubhai was entered in the revenue record in the year 1961 and from the mutation entries, it can be clearly established that the said entry has neither been challenged till the present suit is filed. Narayanbhai Prabhubhai i.e. father of plaintiff expired in the 1998 and even during his lifetime, the said revenue entry has not been challenged and the father of the plaintiffs have not filed any suit claiming right in the suit property as a legal heir of Prabhubhai Kanjibhai. The fact also remained that Prabhubhai Kanjibhai was a protected tenant even as per the say of the plaintiff and it is also the say of the plaintiff that the suit property has been purchased by Lallubhai Prabhubhai in the year 1963 and the said fact that the Lallubhai Prabhubhai has purchased a property from the joint family income has not been raised during the lifetime of Lallubhai, who expired on 11.02.1992, and it is only after the death of Lallubhai that the father of plaintiff had expired in the year on 29.03.1998, and therefore as stated here in above, the father of the plaintiffs have also not challenged revenue entry and or claimed stakes in the suit property being the legal heir of Prabhubhai Kanjibhai.
Page 14 of 41 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 23:07:33 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/259/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined
21. There is nothing on record to show and establish that there was a joint family income and or business by which Lallubhai Prabhubhai has purchased the suit property in the year 1963. Though the entries pertaining to entry no.483, dated 05.08.1961 and entry no.674 dated 22.12. 1971 are not produced, but the same can always be referred in view of the fact that vide Exhibit 4/8 and 4/10, the plaintiff has produced the 7/12 extract of the suit property wherein there is a reference of entry nos. 483 and 674.
22. Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again reiterated that frivolous litigations must be nipped in the bud. Obviously, the Plaintiff is going to state that it had no knowledge of the transactions at the time he filed the suit. However, it is the duty of the Court perusing the Plaint through the lens of Order VII Rule 11 to scrutinize the same and see through the clever drafting.
23. If that is not done, the Courts would be acting as a mute spectator and umpire in a match, which is impermissible. The Court is not expected to wait till the contest between the parties is over to give its judgment. In fact, the duty enjoined on a Court is to actively participate in trials and weed out all the frivolous litigations. No litigant will come to the Court stating that it has no cause of action. However, whether or not the Page 15 of 41 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 23:07:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/259/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined cause of action so pleaded is illusory or triable must be seen by the Court.
24. In T. Arivanandam v. T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467 Hon'ble Apex Court held that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC what is required to be decided is whether the plaint discloses a real cause of action, or something purely illusory, in the following words : (SCC p. 470, para 5)
25. "5. ...The learned Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful - not formal - reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his power under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing ..."
26. Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down principles where the Court must see through the clever drafting in order to come at the conclusion of whether the Plaint is a result of an illusory cause of action or a triable one.
27. Hon'ble Apex Court further in Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali, (2020) 7 SCC 366 has explained the scope of the powers under Order VII Rule 11 in detail after Page 16 of 41 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 23:07:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/259/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined considering several judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court:
23.3. The underlying object of Order 7 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 [Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, 1986 Supp SCC 315.
Followed in Manvendrasinhji Ranjitsinhji Jadeja v. Vijaykunverba, 1998 SCC OnLine Guj 281 :
(1998) 2 GLH 823] 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 : (SCC p. 324, para 12) "12. ... The whole purpose of conferment of such powers is to ensure that a litigation Page 17 of 41 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 23:07:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/259/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined which is meaningless, and 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 in an ordinary civil litigation, the court readily exercises the power to reject a plaint, if it does not disclose any cause of action."
23.5. The power conferred on the court to terminate a civil action is, however, a drastic one, and the conditions enumerated in Order 7 Rule 11 are required to be strictly adhered to.
23.6. Under Order 7 Rule 11, a duty is cast on the court to determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action by scrutinising the averments in the plaint [Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I, (2004) 9 SCC 512] , read in conjunction with the documents relied upon, or whether the suit is barred by any law.
23.8. Having regard to Order 7 Rule 14 CPC, the documents filed along with the plaint, are Page 18 of 41 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 23:07:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/259/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined required to be taken into consideration for deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11(a). When a document referred to in the plaint, forms the basis of the plaint, it should be treated as a part of the plaint.
23.9. In exercise of power under this provision, the court would determine if the assertions made in the plaint are contrary to statutory law, or judicial dicta, for deciding whether a case for rejecting the plaint at the threshold is made out.
23.11. The test for exercising the power under Order 7 Rule 11 is that if the averments made in the plaint are taken in entirety, in conjunction with the documents relied upon, would the same result in a decree being passed. This test was laid down in Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I [Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I, (2004) 9 SCC 512] which reads as : (SCC p. 562, para
139) "139. Whether a plaint discloses a cause of action or not is essentially a question of fact. But whether it does or does not must be found Page 19 of 41 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 23:07:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/259/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined out from reading the plaint itself. For the said purpose, the averments made in the plaint in their entirety must be held to be correct. The test is as to whether if the averments made in the plaint are taken to be correct in their entirety, a decree would be passed."
23.13. If on a meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and without any merit, and does not disclose a right to sue, the court would be justified in exercising the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
23.15. The provision of Order 7 Rule 11 is mandatory in nature. It states that the plaint "shall" be rejected if any of the grounds specified in clauses (a) to (e) are made out. If the court finds that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, or that the suit is barred by any law, the court has no option, but to reject the plaint.
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 Rama Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal [Madanuri Sri Rama Page 20 of 41 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 23:07:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/259/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined Chandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal, (2017) 13 SCC 174 : (2017) 5 SCC (Civ) 602] 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.
28. Hence, in essence, if the Court is of the opinion that (i) no actual cause of action exists and the one pleaded is merely illusory or (ii) there is suppression, camouflage in a litigation that is utterly vexatious and abuse of process of law or (iii) taking all averments of the Plaint in its entirety to be true, no decree can be passed or (iv) assertions made in the Plaint are contrary to judicial dicta or law, etc. the Plaint ought to be rejected. It is pertinent to be noted here that upon arriving at such finding or conclusion, rejection of the Plaint is not discretionary but in fact, is mandatory.
29. Originally, Hon'ble Apex Court in Dilboo (Dead) and Ors.
vs. Dhanraji (Dead) and Ors. MANU/SC/3318/2000 held as follows:
Page 21 of 41 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 23:07:33 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/259/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined It is always for the party who files the suit to show that the suit is within time. Thus in cases where the suit is filed beyond the period of 12 years, the Plaintiff would have to aver and then prove that the suit is within 12 years of his/her knowledge. In the absence of any averment or proof, to show that the suit is within time it is the Plaintiff who would fall. Whenever a document is registered the date of registration becomes the date of deemed knowledge. In other cases where a fact could be discovered by due diligence then deemed knowledge would be attributed to the Plaintiff because a party cannot be allowed to extend period of limitation by merely claiming that he had no knowledge.
30. This principle as laid down in Dilboo (supra) has been followed in several judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court [See: Padhiar Prahladji Chenaji v. Maniben Jagmalbhai, (2022) 12 SCC 128, etc.] This has been the settled proposition of law since many years and decades now.
31. This position has further been clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment of Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust Page 22 of 41 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 23:07:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/259/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined and Ors. vs. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle and Ors., MANU/SC/1382/2024
14. The Plaintiff, in our wisdom, cannot assert or deny something which was whether within the knowledge of his predecessor or not, when he was not even born. Irrespective of the above, the fact that the predecessors of the Respondent No. 1/Plaintiff, never challenged the sale of property to the Defendant No. 1/Appellant by court auction and the subsequent registration of the deeds, despite constructive notice, would imply that they had acceded to the title of the Appellant, which cannot now be questioned by the Plaintiff after such long time. There is also a presumption in law that a registered document is validly executed and is valid until it is declared as illegal. In this regard, this Court in Prem Singh v. Birbal MANU/SC/8139/2006, held as under:
27. There is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the Page 23 of 41 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 23:07:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/259/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined presumption. In the instant case, Respondent 1 has not been able to rebut the said presumption.
15. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to relevant portion of Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which reads as under:
3. Interpretation clause ...
a person is said to have notice of a fact when he actually knows that fact, or when, but for wilful abstention from an enquiry or search which he ought to have made, or gross negligence, he would have known it.
Explanation I.-Where any transaction relating to immoveable property is required by law to be and has been effected by a registered instrument, any person acquiring such property or any part of, or share or interest in, such property shall be deemed to have notice of such instrument as from the date of registration or, where the property is not all situated in one sub-district, or where the registered instrument has been registered Page 24 of 41 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 23:07:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/259/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined Under Sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), from the earliest date on which any memorandum of such registered instrument has been filed by any Sub-Registrar within whose sub-district any part of the property which is being acquired, or of the property wherein a share or interest is being acquired, is situated:
Provided that-(1) the instrument has been registered and its registration completed in the manner prescribed by the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), and the Rules made thereunder, (2) the instrument or memorandum has been duly entered or filed, as the case may be, in books kept Under Section 51 of that Act, and(3)the particulars regarding the transaction to which the instrument relates have been correctly entered in the indexes kept Under Section 55 of that Act. ...
Explanation II.-Any person acquiring any immovable property or any share or interest in any such property shall be deemed to have Page 25 of 41 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 23:07:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/259/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined notice of the title, if any, of any person who is for the time being in actual possession thereof.
Explanation III.-A person shall be deemed to have had notice of any fact if his agent acquires notice thereof whilst acting on his behalf in the course of business to which that fact is material:
Provided that, if the agent fraudulently conceals the fact, the principal shall not be charged with notice thereof as against any person who was a party to or otherwise cognizant of the fraud.
16. When a portion of the property has been conveyed by court auction and registered in the first instance and when another portion has been conveyed by a registered sale deed in 1952, there is a constructive notice from the date of registration and the presumption under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, comes into operation. The possession, in the present case, also has been rested with the Appellant before several decades, which operates as notice of title. This Court in R.K. Mohd. Ubaidullah v.
Page 26 of 41 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 23:07:33 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/259/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined Hajee C. Abdul Wahab MANU/SC/0433/2000 :
2000:INSC:338 : (2000) 6 SCC 402 at page 410, held as follows:
15. Notice is defined in Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act. It may be actual where the party has actual knowledge of the fact or constructive. "A person is said to have notice" of a fact when he actually knows that fact, or when, but for wilful abstention from an inquiry or search which he ought to have made, or gross negligence, he would have known it. ...
Section 3 was amended by the Amendment Act of 1929 in relation to the definition of "notice". The definition has been amended and supplemented by three explanations, which settle the law in several matters of great importance. For the immediate purpose Explanation II is relevant. It states that actual possession is notice of the title of the person in possession. Prior to the amendment there had been some uncertainty because of divergent views expressed by various High Courts in relation to the actual possession as notice of title. A person may enter the Page 27 of 41 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 23:07:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/259/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined property in one capacity and having a kind of interest. But subsequently while continuing in possession of the property his capacity or interest may change. A person entering the property as tenant later may become usufructuary mortgagee or may be agreement holder to purchase the same property or may be some other interest is created in his favour subsequently. Hence with reference to subsequent purchaser it is essential that he should make an inquiry as to the title or interest of the person in actual possession as on the date when the sale transaction was made in his favour. The actual possession of a person itself is deemed or constructive notice of the title if any, of a person who is for the time being in actual possession thereof. A subsequent purchaser has to make inquiry as to further interest, nature of possession and title under which the person was continuing in possession on the date of purchase of the property. In the case on hand Defendants 2 to 4 contended that they were already aware of the nature of possession of the Plaintiff over the suit property as a tenant and as such there was no need to Page 28 of 41 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 23:07:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/259/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined make any inquiry. At one stage they also contended that they purchased the property after contacting the Plaintiff, of course, which contention was negatived by the learned trial court as well as the High Court...
32. This principle is recently elaborated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi v. Anand Kumar, (2025) 5 SCC 198 as follows:
13. A registered document provides a complete account of a transaction to any party interested in the property. This Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. (2) v. State of Haryana [Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. (2) v. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 656 : (2012) 1 SCC (Civ) 351 : (2012) 169 Comp Cas 133 : (2012) 340 ITR 1] held as under : (SCC pp. 664-65, para 15)
15. ... '17. ... Registration of a document [when it is required by law to be, and has been effected by a registered instrument] [Ed. :
Section 3 Explanation I TPA, reads as follows:"S. 3 Expln. I--Where any transaction relating to immovable property is required by law to be and has been effected by a registered Page 29 of 41 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 23:07:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/259/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined instrument, any person acquiring such property or any part of, or share or interest in, such property shall be deemed to have notice of such instrument as from the date of registration...."(emphasis supplied)]] gives notice to the world that such a document has been executed
18. Registration provides safety and security to transactions relating to immovable property, even if the document is lost or destroyed. It gives publicity and public exposure to documents thereby preventing forgeries and frauds in regard to transactions and execution of documents. Registration provides information to people who may deal with a property, as to the nature and extent of the rights which persons may have, affecting that property. In other words, it enables people to find out whether any particular property with which they are concerned, has been subjected to any legal obligation or liability and who is or are the person(s) presently having right, title, and interest in the property. It gives solemnity of form and Page 30 of 41 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 23:07:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/259/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined perpetuate documents which are of legal importance or relevance by recording them, where people may see the record and enquire and ascertain what the particulars are and as far as land is concerned what obligations exist with regard to them. It ensures that every person dealing with immovable property can rely with confidence upon the statements contained in the registers (maintained under the said Act) as a full and complete account of all transactions by which the title to the property may be affected and secure extracts/copies duly certified.' [Ed. : As observed in Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd.
(1) v. State of Haryana, (2009) 7 SCC 363, pp. 367-68, paras 17-18.]
14. Applying this settled principle of law, it can safely be assumed that the predecessors of the plaintiffs had notice of the registered sale deeds (executed in 1978), flowing from the partition that took place way back in 1968, by virtue of them being registered documents. In the lifetime of Mangalamma, these sale deeds have not been challenged, neither has partition been sought. Thus, the suit (filed in the year 2023) of the Page 31 of 41 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 23:07:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/259/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined plaintiffs was prima facie barred by law. The plaintiffs cannot reignite their rights after sleeping on them for 45 years.
33. Even coordinate bench of this Court in several judgments has adopted the presumption of deemed knowledge to reject a Plaint which is otherwise vexatious and frivolous. In Whiteswan Buildcon LLP vs. Thakor Praveenji Mangaji MANU/GJ/2573/2022 this Court held as under:
14. As held by the Supreme Court in case of Dilboo (Smt.) (dead) by Lrs (supra), whenever a document is registered, the date of registration becomes the date of deemed knowledge. In other cases, where a fact could be discovered by due diligence, then deemed knowledge would be attributed to the plaintiff, because a party cannot be allowed to extend period of limitation by merely claiming that he had no knowledge. It is held that in other cases where a fact could be discovered by due diligence then deemed knowledge would be attributed to the plaintiff because a party cannot be allowed to extend period of limitation by merely claiming that he had no knowledge. In the present case, the cause of action, as narrated in the plaint, more Page 32 of 41 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 23:07:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/259/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined particularly Paragraph No. 4 thereof, states that the plaintiffs came to know for the first time about the registered document in the year 2018 when they applied for Village Form No. 7/12 extract. The plaintiffs in the plaint, is seeking setting aside of the registered sale deed and as a consequence are also claiming a share in the suit land. The averments in the plaint reflect that she has alleged that heirs of late Bhagwanji Maganji and Pratapji Maganji came to be brought on the revenue record on 07.06.2005 and it is further stated that late mother of the plaintiffs, though was heir of Bhagwanji Maganji, her name was not brought on record and she died on 17.03.2003 but in changed Entry No. 2157, the names of the plaintiffs are not recorded or entered and they came to know on 17.07.2018 when the certified copy of Village Form No. 7/12 was obtained. The facts, as narrated in the plaint, will suggest that since 2003 till 2018, no efforts are made by the plaintiffs to see that after the demise of their mother in 2003 their names are mutated in the revenue entries, and it is hard to believe that though the plaintiffs are claiming share their claim in the suit land, Page 33 of 41 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 23:07:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/259/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined they would not care to examine the revenue records for a period of almost 15 years. Thus, by a clever drafting and in order to see that the limitation period gets frustrated, the suit has been instituted on a sole reason of obtaining Village Form No. 7/12 extract on 17.07.2018 by alleging that they were kept in dark for 15 years, after the registration of the sale deed on 25.05.2006. It cannot be said that the plaintiffs have discovered the fact of execution of the registered sale on due diligence by obtaining such extract after a period of 15 years. Hence, the suit, which is otherwise barred under the provisions of Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act, by way of clever drafting and by devising the cause of action, on the basis of procuring village Form No. 7/12 in the year 2018; the suit only appears to have been instituted to frustrate the rights of the defendants. With regard to the prayer of seeking proportionate share in the suit land, the same is a consequential relief which entirely depends on the setting aside the registered sale, hence the suit cannot be allowed to be continued for the residuary prayer.
34. Having noticed the aforesaid position of law on the aspect of Page 34 of 41 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 23:07:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/259/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined 'deemed knowledge' the following principles can be culled out:
1. Prima Facie, there is a presumption that a registered document has been validly executed [Prem Singh (supra)].
2. Registration of a document, (unless rebutting the presumption of knowledge) gives notice to public about such registration [Suraj Lamps (supra) Para 17].
3. Whenever a document is registered the date of registration becomes the date of deemed knowledge. In other cases where a fact could be discovered by due diligence then deemed knowledge would be attributed to the Plaintiff [Dilboo (supra)].
4. Therefore, at this juncture, under Order VII Rule 11, it is important to examine and scrutinize the cause of action so pleaded. If the cause of action is illusory, vexatious or frivolous as being outright sham.
35. Therefore, the aforesaid facts clearly show that the Plaint was barred by limitation and it is only to extend the period of limitation that knowledge of such transactions is claimed to be recent. This is impermissible in the eyes of law.
36. Such cases, where the Plaintiff in opinion of the Court, on a bare, entire and meaningful reading of the Plaint, has pleaded a cause of action which is illusory and merely by clever drafting the Plaintiff is seeking to extend the limitation, deserve to be Page 35 of 41 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 23:07:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/259/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined nipped in the bud.
37. The present case falls in the category where the Plaintiff has pleaded a completely illusory and frivolous cause of action. This is clear from the following undisputed facts:
1. Plaintiffs claim to be the owner of the property since his predecessors were the owner thereof.
2. However, even prima facie, there is no such document or entry to support the contention that father of the Plaintiff was the owner of the suit property.
3. The father of the Plaintiffs have never during their lifetime challenged the said mutation entry.
4. After over many years, the stance of the Plaintiff in the suit is that the suit property ought to have come to share of the Plaintiff however, they suddenly came to know of all the transactions that were carried out.
5. Even if the version of the Plaintiffs in the Plaint is taken on demurrer, it transpires that the Plaintiffs have not duly verified or had the diligence to verify that an entry has been mutated in the revenue records of the suit property since years.
38. Hence, in the present case, no shadow or doubt is cast over the presumption of deemed knowledge. The Plaintiff has not disclosed any cause of action. In fact, the cause of action Page 36 of 41 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 23:07:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/259/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined pleaded by the Plaintiff is illusory and by clever drafting, the present suit is sought to be tried.
39. In view of the above referred facts Article 59 of Schedule of Limitation Act would be required to be considered.
59. To cancel or set aside an Three When the facts entitling instrument or decree or for Years. the Plaintiff to have the the rescission of a contract. instrument or decree cancelled or set aside or the contract rescinded first become known to him.
40. In Khatri Hotels Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr., (2011) 9 SCC 126, this Court held that the use of the word first between the words sue and accrued, would mean that if a suit is based on multiple causes of action, the period of limitation will begin to run from the date when the right to sue first accrues. That is, if there are successive violations of the right, it would not give rise to a fresh cause of action, and the suit will be liable to be dismissed, if it is beyond the period of limitation counted from the date when the right to sue first accrued.
41. In view of the said provision it makes it clear that the aggrieved person is supposed to file a suit to cancel or set aside Page 37 of 41 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 23:07:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/259/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined an instrument within a period of three years from the date on which he comes to know about registration of the release deed.
42. The present suit is filed after years of mutation entry that took place. It is also required to be considered that during their lifetime, the grandfather and the father of the Plaintiffs have never challenged the mutation entry, nor have they challenged the revenue entry no.483 dated 05.08.1961 and entry no.674 dated 22.12. 1971.
43. The legal heirs have for the first time come forward with the case that the suit property belonged to their forefathers and have challenged the first release deed of 2007. From the year 1961 i.e. from the date the revenue entry no.486 by which the name of Lallubhai was mutated in the revenue entry, till the year 2023, no legal proceedings had taken place.
44. In the present case the plaintiff has admitted that Lallubhai had become the owner of the suit property therefore the question of the property being ancestral property and the plaintiff having right in the same does not arise.
45. The present is the case of shrewd and crafty drafting, the averments made in the Plaint clearly show that by clever drafting the Plaintiff has tried to show that the suit is within the period of limitation. The Court has to consider and read in Page 38 of 41 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 23:07:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/259/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined meaningful manner the averments made in the Plaint and the present suit having been filed challenging entry of 1961, the Plaint is hopelessly time barred. The bar of limitation has got its own significance and the object as such by referring smart averments, such statutory provision cannot be sidelined. Though the issue of limitation is mixed question of law and fact but only by that fact an application under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code cannot be rejected as it would frustrate the very purpose of the said provision and permit such kind of frivolous litigation which are hopelessly barred by law of limitation and the same will have to be decided irrespective of its tenability.
46. In Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd. Vs. Central Bank of India And Anr., AIR Online 2020 SC 576 Hon'ble Apex Court stated that the Trial Court cannot selectively read averments of the Plaint as pleaded in cause of action and in fact, the same must be read completely and meaningfully. However, in the present case, even upon an entire reading of the Plaint, the cause of action is not disclosed and it is only illusory and sham.
47. Similary in Salim D. Agboatwala and Ors. Vs. Shamalji Oddhavji Thakkar and Ors, AIR Online 2021 SC 731 Hon'ble Court held that the limitation was a mixed question of law and Page 39 of 41 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 23:07:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/259/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined fact. It was held in those given facts that the Plaintiff became aware of the transaction when it gained knowledge of the proceedings. However, in the present case, the Plaintiff has stated that revenue entry entered was not within knowledge of the Plaintiff. This is clearly is clever drafting and hence, must be nipped in the bud.
CONCLUSION
48. Therefore, as discussed above, the present case is a case of clever drafting by the Plaintiff to extend and shroud the actual period of limitation. The Plaintiff cannot be permitted to claim right after a period of over several years in view of the discussion above.
49. In view of the foregoing, the present Plaint is barred by Limitation and hence, the same is required to be rejected under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. Consequently, the present Civil Revision Application deserves to be allowed and is thus allowed. The Plaint in Regular Civil Suit No.629 of 2023 is hereby rejected. Rule is made absolute.
Sd/-
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J) Further Order After the pronouncement of judgment, learned advocate for the opponent prayed for stay of the judgment.
Page 40 of 41 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 23:07:33 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/259/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined In view of the same, the judgment is stayed for the period of four weeks.
Sd/-
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J) URIL RANA Page 41 of 41 Uploaded by URIL KRISHNAKUMAR RANA(HC01406) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 23:07:33 IST 2025