Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. In nutshell, the facts taken from the impugned judgments and orders as well as pleadings are as under.

3. Navratna society in city of Nadiad exists on Final Plot No.786, Town Planning Scheme No.1 of Survey No.3264. The plaintiffs and defendants are residents of Navratna society. In the said society, in total 21 tenements and 8 row houses have been constructed. The plaintiffs are one of the owners of row house in the said society. According to the plaintiffs, the compound wall of the northern side wall damaged due to the trees grown up there. The plaintiffs, having removed the trees, reconstructed the compound wall. Some of the defendants raised the dispute that the plaintiffs have constructed compound wall on the common plot and thereby the defendants have filed the application before the concerned Police Station and subsequent thereto, removed the compound wall constructed by the plaintiffs.

4. The plaintiffs in the suit further alleged that some of the defendants and owners of some of the houses in the same society permitted Montu @ Popat Chelaji Marwadi to carry on kachcha construction in the common plot by obtaining Rs.5,00,000/- from him. Thus, the plaintiffs NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/182/2022 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2026 undefined firstly demanded help from the defendants to remove unauthorized construction and then went to Nagarpalika and Police Station on 10.5.2011 and subsequently on 12.12.2011 encroachment was removed. In pursuance of which, the suit was also filed by the encrocher raising contention that only the plaintiffs and owners of House No.A/12 are objecting against the construction in the common plot.

5. In the background of these pleadings, the plaintiffs pleaded the cause of action that they have given the notice to the defendants and the defendant No.10 are not permitting to park their vehicle in the common plot and the defendants have removed the compound wall and they are liable to pay damages of Rs.19,10,000/- with interest and the relief which may be deemed fit may be granted by the learned trial Court.

16. In view of the above, if we examine the plaint on the face of it, it is seen that it is absurd plaint. Instead of making averments as per Order VI of the Code, it is pleaded north and south in the plaint. The tone and tenor of the plaint indicates that the plaintiffs, being aggrieved by the demolition of his compound wall which was erected on the common plot, have filed the suit in the year 2018. On one hand, the plaintiffs pleaded that the defendants have profiteered by giving the present common plot to some third NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/182/2022 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2026 undefined party which can fetch Rs.5,00,000/-. Secondly, the plaintiffs have pleaded that the defendants are not permitting to park their vehicle in the common plot and thirdly, the plaintiffs have come out with a cause of action that since their compound wall is demolished by the defendants, they have suffered a loss of Rs.19,10,000/-. The plaint itself suggests that the compound wall was removed somewhere in 2011 and the plaintiffs by devious and clever drafting not pleaded specific date that on which date, their compound wall was demolished but their statement with regard to filing of police complaint etc. indicates that the common wall was demolished in the year 2011. The plaintiffs filed the suit for recovery of damages of Rs.19,10,000/- which according to them has been caused due to demolition of the compound wall. As per Article 113 of the Limitation Act, the suit has to be filed within three years from the date of right to sue accrues. In the present case, if the pleadings of the plaintiffs in the plaint are taken as true and correct, his right to sue accrues within three years from the year 2011 in which compound wall was demolished. The suit is filed in the year 2018 which is hopelessly barred by law of limitation. The cause of action pleaded by the plaintiffs is also even seems to be absurd and ingenuine. In the case of T.Arivandandam Vs. T.V.Satyapal and another, reported in (1977) 4 SCC 467, the Honourable Supreme Court pitched for rejecting such NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/182/2022 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2026 undefined irresponsible suits by invoking the powers under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code.