JUDGMENT :

1. By way of this Civil Revision Application under Section 11 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the Code’), the petitioner herein – original defendant has called in question the order dated 27.3.2023 passed below Exh.150 in Regular Civil Suit No.2117 of 2015 (Old Special Civil Suit No.569 of 1990) passed by learned 8th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara, by which the trial court has refused to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code was rejected.

2. The facts giving rise to this Civil Revision Application, in nutshell, are as under :

2.1 The respondent herein - original plaintiff has preferred Regular Civil Suit No.2117 of 2015 (Old Special Civil Suit No.569 of 1990) for declaration and permanent injunction with the following reliefs :

“(1) Be pleased to declare in favor of the plaintiff that the detail of area (1,66,777.58 sq.m.) mentioned in the abstract of the property register card of city survey no.2545, moje village Manjalpur, Taluka- Vadodara, is wrong and the land ad-measuring 6 acre at survey no.498 of moje village Manjalpur is owned by the plaintiff.

(2) Be pleased to declare in favor of the plaintiff that city survey no.2545, entirely registered in the name of Hindustan Tractors Co. Ltd., is wrong and registered unlawfully and the resolution passed before the city survey officer, dated 16/12/1976 is not binding to the plaintiff.

(3) Be pleased to pass permanent injunction order in favor of the plaintiff that unless the location of the lands of the plaintiff and respondent is determined in survey no.498, the respondent company shall not interfere in the possession of the triangular shaped land of the plaintiff, situated at the south-west corner of survey no.498 of the village Manjalpur, or shall not interfere through its employees or agents or any other co-operative society working for the aforesaid company or its contractors, by any means and any type of construction is not carried out and if any construction is already done, then the same is not continued.

(4) Be pleased to award the cost of this suit from the respondent.

(5) Be pleased to grant any other relief in the interest of justice, in favor of plaintiff’s Mahindra Gujarat Tractor Ltd.”

2.2 Upon service of notice, the petitioner herein – original defendant appeared and submitted its written statement below Exh.15 on 20.7.1990.

2.3 Thereafter, in the year 1998, initially, the trial court framed the issues below Exh.25 as under :

“1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the disputed property is in his possession?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is encroaching upon plaintiff’s property i.e. land?

3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the details of area of city survey No.2544 as mentioned at property register records, is illegal?”

2.4 Thereafter, it appears that upon an application Exh.181 at the instance of original defendant, the trial court vide order dated 12.4.2023, reformulated/reconstructed the issues by adding Issue Nos.4 and 5, as under :

“4. Whether the plaintiff proves that the city survey resolution dated 16.12.1976 being passed by city survey officer is not binding upon him ?

5. Whether the defendant proves that the entire suit lands are his property by virtue of which title deed document?”

2.5 It appears, although the suit was filed in the year 1990, after passage of almost 32 to 33 years, for one or the other reason, the suit remained undecided. Since the suit is almost 32 to 33 years old, the same is being reflected as pending in top most 100 old cases and thereby, considering the general directions of the High Court of Gujarat, the trial court has taken up the suit on day-to-day basis. The original plaintiff has produced oral as well as documentary evidence, deposition in form of affidavit in chief examination of Atmagnyaben Shah at Exh.101, to which the original defendant has, through lawyer, in detail cross-examined said witness on various dates i.e. 6.2.2023, 7.2.2023, 14.2.2023, 15.2.2023, 16.