Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SANDEEP N. BHATT, J.
Rameshbhai Punabhai Bavda & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Lrs Of Dhanjibhai Veljibhai Raiyani & Ors. – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No.5389 of 2023
Decided on : 08-04-2024
Order 14 Rule 5 - Interpretation of CPC - 1, 2 - The court discussed the provisions of Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC and its discretion to amend and strike out issues. It also referred to Order 1 Rule 9 of CPC to determine the necessity of framing additional issues. The court concluded that the suit was filed for declaration and permanent injunction, and the burden of proving a fact rested on the party asserting it. The court also held that the issue of limitation was already rejected and need not be framed. The judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench and the case of Garment Craft V/ s Prakash Chand Goel were referred to in support of the decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners purchased land from the opponent, who later claimed the sale deed was executed without her knowledge. The opponents filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction, and vacant possession of the land. The petitioners filed an application to reject the plaint and another for raising additional issues, which was dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit was filed for declaration and permanent injunction, and the burden of proving a fact rested on the party asserting it. It also concluded that the issue of limitation was already rejected and need not be framed. The court dismissed the petition and expected the parties to cooperate for concluding the suit pending since 2011.
Issues: The issues included the rejection of the application for raising additional issues and the conduct of the petitioners in delaying the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the provisions of Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC, the burden of proof, and the rejection of the issue of limitation. It also emphasized the expectation of cooperation from the parties in concluding the suit.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the parties were expected to cooperate for concluding the suit pending since 2011.
ORDER :
1. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for the following prayers:
b. Pending adjudication of the present writ petition, your lordships, may be please to stay the proceedings of the Special civil suit no.125/2011 pending before Ld.Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gondal, Annexure `A’ colly.
C. xxxxx”
2. The brief facts, as stated in the memo of the petition, are such that the present petitioner no.1 purchased the open land admeasuring 873-8 sq.yards situated at plot No.32 of R.S.No.40/1 in Kangashiali village of Lodhika taluka of Rajkot district from present opponent no.3 vide sale deed dated 28.2.2008 bearing registration no.2038 before Sub-Registrar’s office Gondal and the said sale deed was executed by the power of attorney (Amit S Mehta) of the present opponent no.3; that the present petitioner nos.2 to 5 purchased the above mentioned property from the present petitioner no.1 through registered sale deed bearing number 494212 and 11770 dated 25.11.2008; that the present opponent no.3 claiming that the sale deed bearing registration no.2038 on 28.2.2008 was out of her knowledge and in 2010, when she came to know about the sale of her property, she then lodged a complaint and executed a sale deed of the above mentioned property in favour of the present opponent nos.1 and 2 where the present opponent nos.1 and 2 purchased the above mentioned property vide sale deed bearing registration no.6539 on 27.9.2011 before the Sub- registrar’s office, Lodhika. The present opponents filed the Special Civil Suit No.125 of 2011 for declaration, permanent injunction and vacant possession of the land in question. The present petitioners submitted an application at Exh.27 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (`CPC’ for short) to reject the plaint on the ground of suit barred by law; the said application was rejected vide order dated 5.3.2020. Thereafter, the petitioners filed application below Exh.37 for raising additional issues, which was dismissed vide order dated 3.2.2023, which is challenged in this petition.
3. Heard learned advocates for the parties.
3.1 Learned advocate Mr.Hemal Shah for the petitioners submitted that the subordinate court failed to understand the concept of `necessary party’ and thus erred in rejecting the application of the petitioners; that the provisions of Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC were not properly interpreted; that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the citation relied on by the learned advocate for the petitioners; that the issues which are sought to be framed by filing this application are necessary for adjudication of the lis and therefore the said application ought to have been allowed.
3.2 Learned advocate Mr.Hemal Shah for the petitioners has relied on the decisions in the cases of (i) Uttar Gujarat Vij Co Ltd V/s Dhulabhai Kodarbhai Vankar of this Court decided on 13.11.2008 in Special Civil Application No.11105 of 2008; (ii) Proprietor of Ganesh Cotton Ratibhai Ambabhai Pambhar V/s Krishna Textile Corporation of this Court decided on 29.11.2019 in Special Civil Application No.6766 of 2019’ (iii) Patel Dhanjibhai Ambaram V/s Navinchandra Vrajlal Ved of this Court decided on 1.10.2021 passed in Civil Revision Application No.122 of 2016 and submitted that the issue of limitation is required to be framed and without framing the said issue, the point of limitation could not have been decided by the learned trial Court.
3.3 He, therefore, prayed to allow this petition by quashing and setting aside the impugned order and in turn, allow the application filed at Exh.37 before the learned trial court in the suit.
4. Per contra, learned a
High Court can set aside or ignore findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly ....
Omission to frame an issue would not vitiate the trial if the parties were aware of the issue and led evidence on it.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the proposed issues by the defendant no.1 were already covered by existing issues and did not need to be separately framed. The Court also emp....
The court upheld the trial court's decision to deny the petitioners' application to join the suit, emphasizing the necessity of parties and the principle of dominus litis in civil proceedings.
All necessary amendments for determining the real questions in controversy should be allowed, provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. Delay alone cannot be a ground to di....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the discretionary power to add parties under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure should be exercised to ensure the effective adjudi....
All amendments necessary for determining the real issue in controversy between the parties must be allowed, and the fact that the amendment may be belated cannot be a ground to disallow the amendment....
The court has the authority to reject suits under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC if they are manifestly vexatious and grossly delayed, even in the absence of a plea of limitation.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
