Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 9843
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
A.S. SUPEHIA, J
HEIRS AND LRS OF DECD MOHANBHAI VALJIBHAI TANK – Appellant
Versus
BAI PIROJBAI MANEKJI PATEL SINGANPOREWALA ENGLISH SCHOOL FOR GIRL TRUST – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. 4386 of 2019 | CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR ARPIT A KAPADIA, MR P.K. JANI
For the Respondents: MR S.K. PATEL
Civil courts must strictly adhere to the procedural grounds presented in motions, and deviation can lead to quashing of decisions made on unsupported bases.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 96 - Bombay Public Trusts Act - Section 36(1) - Tenancy Act - Section 85 - Rejection of plaint - Appellants challenged the order rejecting their plaint under Order VII Rule 11 - Court found the trial court exceeded the scope of the application by relying on Section 36(1) which was not a contention of the defendant in its application. (Paras 6-8)
(B) Orders by Civil Judge - Maintainability - Civil Courts must adhere to the specific grounds presented in the application when making rulings; deviation from this can result in quashing of orders. (Paras 7-8)
Facts of the case:
The appellants filed a civil suit concerning property transfer which was rejected by the trial court based on a provision that was not cited in the application by the defendant.
Findings of Court:
The impugned order of the trial court was found to be beyond the presented arguments, thus warranting its quash. The original suit is reinstated for further proceedings.
Issues: Whether the trial court overstepped its mandate by relying on legal grounds not presented by the defendant in their application for rejection of the plaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that adherence to procedural grounds is critical, and failure to do so can lead to overturning decisions. The trial court's ruling was non-sustaining as it referenced provisions not invoked.
Result: The impugned order is quashed and the suit restored.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court admitted the appeal and identified it as having a significant procedural issue. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding the rejection of the plaint focus on procedural grounds. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court observed that the trial court exceeded its bounds in applying irrelevant sections. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. the ruling reiterated the importance of proper legal grounds in court applications. (Para 8) |
| 5. final decision reinstated the original suit for further proceedings. (Para 9) |
ORDER
1. Admit. Learned advocate Mr. S.K. Patel waives service of notice of admission on behalf of the respondent Nos.12, 13 and 14. Though served, no one has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent-Trust. Since a short issue is involved in the present appeal, the same is taken up for finally hearing today.
2. In the present appeal, the appellants have assailed the order dated 10.07.2019 passed by 6th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat in an application below Exhibit-21 filed in Special Civil Suit No.300 of 2007.
3. Being aggrieved, the present First Appeal under Section 96 read with Order 41 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is filed.
4. Learned senior advocate Mr. P.K. Jani appearing for learned advocate Mr. Kapadia for the appellants has submitted that the impugned order is required to set aside since the same travels beyond the scope of the application filed below Exhibit-21 by the defendant No.1 i.e. the respondent No.1-Trust. It is submitted that the application filed under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC with regard to rejection of plaint, has been allowed and the plaint is ordered to be rejected. He has submitted that the impugned order is premised and passed by placing reliance on Section 36 (1) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act , which was not the case of the respondent-trust in the application filed below Exhibit-21 under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC . He has submitted that the application was filed by resorting or relying under the provision of Sections 80 of Bombay Public Trusts Act and Section 85 of the Tenancy Act , which was totally ignored while passing the impugned order. Hence, the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside.
5. Learned advocate Mr. S.K. Patel appearing for the respondent Nos.12, 13 and 14 has submitted that he is the subsequent purchaser of the land situated at revenue survey No.16, which was the subject matter of auction and he has nothing to do with the plot of survey No.11. He has submitted that even otherwise an application has been filed by the respondent No.1 i.e. the defendant No.1-trust below Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC on which the order has been passed.
6. I have heard the learned advocates for respective parties. As notice hereinabove, though served respondent No.1 trust, who is the original defendant No.1, has chosen not to appear before this Court. The defendant No.1 had filed an application below Exhibit-21 under Order VII Rule 11 seeking rejection of plaint. I have perused the application Exhibit-21. A bare perusal of the aforesaid application reveals that the defendant No.1-trust had filed the same seeking rejection of the plaint by invoking the provision of Section 80 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act and Section 85 of the Tenancy Act . Learned 6 th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat has allowed the said application and rejected the plaint filed by the present appellants. This Court has perused the aforesaid impugned order. Paragraph No.8 of the aforesaid order is incorporated as under:-
- “8.
- Thus, Transfer of Property without prior sanction of Charity Commissioner under Sec.36(1) of the Act is void-ab-initio and the aggrieved party is not required to go for declaration for nullity of contract before the Civil Court. Hence, following order is required to pass. Order The application is allowed.
- The plaint is order to reject u/O.7 Rule 11 of The Code of Civil Procedure.
- No order as to costs.”
7. Thus, 6 th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat h
