Failure to disclose material facts in litigation constitutes an abuse of process, leading to dismissal of claims.

ORAL ORDER

1. The present petitioner is filed by the petitioners – original plaintiffs with the following prayers :

“7(A) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to admit and allow this petition and quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 22.02.2024 passed by learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Vansda, District – Navsari, rejecting Misc.Civil appeal No.11 of 2023 (Annexure-I to the petition). This Hon’ble Court may also be pleased to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 05.09.2023 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Navsari below Exhibit-104 in Special Civil Suit No.31 of 2017, (Annexure E to the petition) and in turn be pleased to allow application Exhibit-

104, filed by the petitioners before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Navsari, and restrain the respondents from demolishing Tulsi Villa situated on the suit premises bearing House No.849 Paiki-1, on Mandir Road in Village – Unai, Taluka-Vansda, District-Navsari, till the Special Civil Suit No.31 of 2017 filed by the petitioners is final heard and decided.

(B) Pending admission and/or final disposal of the petition, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution of the order passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Vansda, Navsari, rejecting the Misc.Civil Appeal No.11 of 2023 (Annexure-I to the petition), and confirming the order passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, rejecting Exhibit-104 application filed by the petitioners and in turn be pleased to restrain the from demolishing Tulsi Villa situated on the suit premises bearing House No.849 Paiki-1, on Mandir Road in Village – Unai, Taluka-Vansda, District-Navsari, till the Special Civil Suit No.31 of 2017 and further direct the parties to maintain status-quo position of the suit premises till the Special Civil Suit No.31 of 2017 is finally heard and decided by the trial Court.

(C) xxxxx

(D) xxxx”

2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Bharda for the petitioner and Mr.Anand Patel, learned advocate for respondent No.2 on caveat.

3.1 Learned advocate Mr. Bharda for the petitioners has drawn my attention to the findings of the learned lower appellate Court, whereby the learned lower appellate Court has only considered the aspect that in the year 2013, the sale transaction of the subject property of the suit is already entered into by way of a registered sale deed No. 420 of 2013 on 20.06.2013 for the sale consideration of Rs.17 lakhs between the parties i.e. First party : Jitubhai Vallabhai Gajera and others and Second party : Himanshu Jayantibhai Dhimmar and others. The said registered sale deed is produced before the concerned Court on the record.

3.2 He has submitted that the learned lower appellate Court has not decided the appeal on merits and hence, by considering this aspect only that the suit property was sold in the year 2013 and the present owner of the suit property are not made party in the litigation. This finding is erroneous, improper and not tenable in eyes of law. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sharadamma V/s Mohammed Pyrejan (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Another, reported in (2016) 1 SCC 730 , more particularly paras – 3 and 4 thereof.

3.3 He has submitted that though the party to whom the property is transferred during the pendency of the suit, is not required not be impleaded as party in the suit proceeding, as the outcome of the suit proceeding is binding to the purchaser – subsequent party. He has submitted that the Courts below have granted interim relief and the order of status-quo which is operating till the disposal of the Civil Misc. Appeal No.11 of 2023 by the learned appellate Court and thereafter, he has immediately approached this Court.