Back
2025 Supreme(Guj) 2121
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SANJEEV J.THAKER, J.
Pineshbhai Mangabhai Patel – Appellant
Versus
Hemantbhai Mangabhai Patel – Respondent
R/Second Appeal No. 76 Of 2025, Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1 Of 2025
Decided On : 20-03-2025
For The Appellant : Mr Shubhang H Shah, Mr Yash K Shah
Courts are not passive observers and must ensure procedural efficiency. They are empowered to bypass lengthy trials and pass summary judgments when pleadings fail to disclose a material triable issue, preventing abuse of process by litigants filing frivolous or sham defenses to delay the lawful recovery of property.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VI Rule 2, Order VIII Rule 1A, Rule 3-5, Order X Rule 2, Order XII Rule 6, Order XIV Rule 1, Order XV Rule 1 - Section 100 - Recovery of possession - Duty of court to manage litigation efficiently - Proactive judicial intervention versus passive oversight - Need for material pleadings to warrant framing of issues - Concept of sham or illusory defenses. (Paras 11, 15, 23, 39, 52)
(B) Appeals - Scope of interference - Limitation on re-appreciation of concurrent findings of facts - Appellate jurisdiction cannot be invoked to replace findings unless decision is perverse or contrary to law - Absence of substantial questions of law. (Paras 69-71)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sought recovery of possession and a perpetual injunction regarding property owned by them, alleging the defendant was a permissive user without any legal right or subsisting agreement. The defendant challenged the title and asserted possession without presenting documentary evidence. Both lower courts ruled in favor of the plaintiff, confirming the right to possession.
Findings of Court:
The court held that trial judges must not remain passive umpires but must proactively examine pleadings to identify material facts. Where a defendant fails to raise a material proposition of fact or law, or utilizes evasive denials, the court is not mandated to frame issues mechanically. Instead, it may resolve the suit at the first hearing to prevent vexatious litigation.
Issues: Whether the court is obligated to frame issues for every plea raised by a defendant regardless of its materiality, and whether the appellate court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact in the absence of a substantial question of law.
Ratio Decidendi: Judicial time must be preserved by ensuring that issues are framed only on material propositions of law or fact that reflect a genuine triable dispute. Sham or illegal defenses intended to protract litigation can be disposed of at the threshold through procedural mechanisms that allow for summary judgment when no triable issue exists.
Result: Appeal dismissed at the admission stage.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellate standards and factual landscape of property disputes. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. claims regarding permissive possession and title disputes. (Para 7) |
| 3. court duty in curbing litigation delays through procedural laws. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. proactive judicial management to prevent unproductive trials. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. mandatory production of material pleadings and documentary evidence. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 6. legal consequences of specific or evasive denials in pleadings. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 7. threshold for framing issues and disposal at first hearing. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57) |
| 8. rejecting illusory or vexatious defences to prevent judicial abuse. (Para 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65) |
| 9. dismissal of appeal due to lack of substantial questions. (Para 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72) |
JUDGMENT :
SANJEEV J.THAKER, J.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. FACTUAL MATRIX
B. CASE OF THE DEFENDANT
C. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
A. Statutory requirement of active role of Courts in trial proceedings
B. ‘Material Pleadings’ and Production of Documents with the Written Statement
A. Order VI: Pleadings generally
B. Order VIII: Written Statement, Set off and Counterclaim
C. Admissions borne from the Pleadings
A. Order VIII: Written Statement, Set off and Counter claim
B. Order XII – Admissions
D. “Parties not at issue” –– An interplay of Orders X, XII, XIV and XV of the CPC
A. Order X: Examination of Parties by the Court
B. Order XIV: Settlement of Issues and Determination of Suit on Issues of Law or on Issues agreed upon
C. “Material Proposition of fact or law”
D. Order XV: Disposal of the Suit at the first hearing
E. Prolonging of litigation by unscrupulous litigants and the role of Courts in curbing the same
D. CONCLUSION
A. FACTUAL MATRIX
1. The present Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the judgment and decree passed by 12h Additional District Judge, Surat in Regular Civil Suit No.32 of 2017 whereby, the appeal preferred by the appellant came to be rejected and the Appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree dated 23.03.2017 passed by 11th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat in Regular Civil Suit No.419 of 2008
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as their original status, the present appellant is referred to as the original defendant and the respondent herein is referred to as the original plaintiff.
3. The plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No.419 of 2008 stating that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and the said suit was for recovery of possession and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from preventing the plaintiff for making construction over first floor of the suit premises. The plaintiff and the defendant are brothers and it is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff has purchased the suit property by registered sale deed on 14.02.2008 and since 14.02.2008 plaintiff is the exclusive owner of the suit premises and as the defendant is the brother of the plaintiff and as the defendant who was in requirement of the residential property till the time he constructs on residential property, the defendant approached the plaintiff and his father and requested them to allow the defendant to stay in the suit property. Considering the said request, the plaintiff agreed to provide the suit property for residence to defendant for a period of 2 to 3 months. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is neither the tenant nor the licenser and the suit property was handed over to the defendant without any licence fee and it is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant is the permissive user in the suit premises.
4. Moreover, it is the plaintiff’s case that as the plaintiff wanted to construct additional floor on the suit premises, the plaintif
