Point of Law: powers under Section 84-C of the Act will have to be exercised within reasonable time. The question then would arise what would be the reasonable time for exercise of such powers and what would be its starting point. As held by the Supreme Court in its ruling in the case of Patel Raghav Natha (supra), what would be the reasonable time would depend upon the facts in each case and the nature of the impugned order in each case

ORDER :

1. This Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the Original-Defendant No. 5 challenging the Judgment and Order dated 5.3.2020 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Sanand dismissing the Application Exh.149 filed by the present Applicant, under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in Special Civil Suit No. 17 of 2018.

2. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE AS UNDER:

2.1 The Plaintiffs (Respondents Nos. 6 and 7 herein) filed Special Civil Suit No. 477 of 2007 which was then renumbered on transfer to Sanand Court as Special Civil Suit No. 17 of 2018. The Suit is filed for declaration that Jivubhai, the sole owner of the land in question was entitled to make a Will and the land bequeathed to the Plaintiffs by such Will was in ownership and possession of the Plaintiffs. A further declaration was prayed that the sale-deed dated 29.05.2007 made by the defendant no. 1/2, Vanubhai with the Defendant No. 5, be cancelled. Since pending the suit, the defendant no. 5 sold the said land by a sale-deed dated 4.2.2010 to one Gatil Properties Private Limited, the said party was joined as defendant no. 6 and an amended prayer was made to set aside the sale-deed dated 4.2.2010 by the defendant no. 5 with defendant no. 6.

2.2 Pleadings in the Plaint suggested that the land bearing survey no. 598/2 ad-measuring 7386 sq. meters of Village Godhavi, Taluka Sanand was of the Original Ownership of Veluji Baliyaji which then came to the share of Jambhai Baliyaji. Jambhai sold the land in 1965 to Jivubhai and a revenue entry No. 955 was recorded in the revenue records. The case of the plaintiffs is that since there were cordial relations between Jivubhai and them, Jivubbhai by a Will dated 4.4.1986 bequeathed the land to the plaintiffs. On Jivubhai’s death on 28.5.1986 the land was entered into the revenue records in the name of the plaintiffs and a mutation entry 2466 was certified on 17.12.1986. This was made after the heirs of Jivubhai on 5.9.1986 gave NOC before the Revenue Authority. On the death of Munna Singh, the purchaser, the names of the heirs of Munna Singh plaintiffs were also entered into in the Revenue Records.

2.3 The plaintiffs continued to be in possession and ownership of the land in question, which however was sought to be reversed after 15 years when the Revenue Entry 2466 made in 1986 was sought to be taken in suo-motu revision in the year 2004 after 18 years or so on 6.7.2004. The revenue entry was reversed in 2005 which was unsuccessfully challenged by the plaintiffs before the Deputy Collector and the Collector and on the date of the suit Revision proceedings were pending before the SSRD.

2.4 Based on the order of the District Collector dated 20.12.2005 the defendant number 1/2 sold the land to the defendant no. 5 on the basis of the revenue entries made in favour of the defendants 1/1 to 1/6, heirs of Jivubhai. The land was sold to the defendant no. 5 by way of a registered sale-deed on 29.05.2007. This engineered a cause of action for the plaintiffs who were otherwise in possession and ownership on the basis of the entry of 1986 to challenge the sale-deed dated 29.5.2007. It was on these averments and facts that declarations in the suit were sought. The Trial Court by an order dated 5.12.2007 granted injunction. However, since pending the suit the lands were further sold by the defendant no. 5 to Gatil Properties, the plaint had to be amended and a declaration to set aside the sale-deed of 4.2.2010 was prayed for by also adding the defendant no. 6 the subsequent purchaser.

2.5 On 25.07.2017, the defendant no. 5 after filing the written statement in the year 2008, filed an Application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying that the suit of the Plaintiffs be dismissed.

2.6 According to the Applicant/original defendant no. 5 the plaintiffs c