Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (3.35 seconds)
Documents citing Masrur Fatema Jafarali Saiyed & 2 vs Vishnubhai Ambalal Patel & 44 on 6 August, 2015

Chanchalben Ishwarbhai Vasava vs Decd. Ambalal Ishwarbhai Vasava ... on 24 June, 2025

13. Similarly in the case of Masrur Fatema Jafarali Saiyed vs. Vishnubhai Ambalal Patel (supra), the Division Bench of this Court, after considering the averments made in the plaint, found that the plaintiff therein had not disclosed the facts before the trial Court and that there was suppression of material facts. The Court, was of the opinion that the plaintiff therein has deliberately not stated the facts and had the plaintiff disclosed the material fact, the suit of the plaintiff, would have been barred by limitation. The Court, while not interfering with the judgment of the Court below, observed that considering the objective of Order VII Rule 11 and if it is found that the suit is barred by limitation, the Court, shall dismiss the same. The Court was also of the opinion that the suit, was nothing, but an abuse of process of law and the suit, was rightly rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code.
Gujarat High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - S K Vishen - Full Document

Jaman Shamji Fadadu vs Sadik Mahmad Sidik on 12 January, 2023

25. Before proceeding further, some of the judgments on point are worth referring to. In the judgment in the case of Masrur Fatema Jafarali Saiyed v. Vishnubhai Ambalal Patel(supra), the Apex Court has held and observed that considering the purpose and object of order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code; when it is found that the suit is barred by limitation the Court shall reject the same. The suit was filed by the plaintiff therein seeking declaration that the registered Page 22 of 41 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 20:45:48 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/345/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/01/2023 undefined sale deeds in favour of the defendants are executed by fraud and therefore, illegal and not binding on the plaintiff. The Apex Court, found that the original plaintiffs, have not stated the correct facts and that there was suppression of material facts. The Apex Court also took note of the fact that in the interregnum, various registered sale deeds were executed and certain parcels of land were sold in favour of the defendants therein executing registered sale deeds. The Apex Court was of the opinion that the suit was nothing but an abuse of process of law and the plaintiff, woke up only in the year 2002 challenging the sale deeds, seeking declaration of fraud of the transaction executed in the year 1969 and thereafter, in the year 1985-1993. Relevant paragraphs 10, 10.1 and 11.3 read thus:
Gujarat High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - S K Vishen - Full Document

Snehalbhai Jaykantbhai Shah vs The New India Industries Ltd. on 12 June, 2018

[7.3]   In   the   case   of   Masrur   Fatema   Jafarali   Saiyed   (Supra),   the  Division   Bench   of   this  Court   has  considered  the  decisions  of  the  Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T. Arvindanam (Supra) as  well as the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of  The   Church   of   Christ   Charitable   Trust   and   Educational  Charitable   Society   vs.   M/s.   Ponniamman   Educational   Trust  reported in AIR 2012 SC 3912 and in paras 55, 56, 57 and 60, the  Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid decision has observed  and held as follows:
Gujarat High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 1 - M R Shah - Full Document

Deepak Ramniklal Dholakia vs Jayesh Niranjanbhai Dholakia on 12 March, 2018

[5.2] At this stage the decision of the Division Bench of this Court  in   the   case   of  Masrur   Fatema   Jafarali   Saiyed   &   2   vs.   Vishnubhai  Ambalal Patel & 44 reported in 2016 SCC Online Guj 5971 is required  to be considered and referred to. The Division Bench of this Court in the  aforesaid case, in  paras 55, 56, 57 and 60 has  observed and held as  under:
Gujarat High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hemaben Prafulbhai Kaneria vs L.H. Of Decd. Dwarkadas Mathurdas Shah - ... on 13 April, 2017

3. It is sought to be submitted by the learned Advocate Mr.Dipal Ravaiya for the applicant that the opponent No.1 has not disclosed any cause of action in the plaint and even otherwise the suit is barred by law of limitation, inasmuch as the sale deed of 2004 executed in favour of the applicant is sought to be challenged in the year 2014. Relying upon the decision of this Court in case of Masrur Fatema Jafarali Saiyed Vs. Vishnubhai Ambalal Patel, reported in 2016(0) AIJ-GJ 237186, he submitted that the plaint is liable to be rejected as barred by law of limitation.
Gujarat High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - B M Trivedi - Full Document
1