Advocates:
['ARPIT A KAPADIA', 'KARTIKKUMAR K JOSHI', 'NISARG P RAVAL', 'JAY S SHAH', 'RULE UNSERVED']

C/FA/1774/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 28/09/2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1774 of 2020

With

CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2020

In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1774 of 2020

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA

Sd/-

and

HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI

Sd/-

================================================================

1

Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed

to see the judgment ?

YES

2

To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

YES

3

Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy

of the judgment ?

NO

4

Whether this case involves a substantial question

of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution

of India or any order made thereunder ?

NO

Circulate this Judgment in the Subordinate Judiciary

================================================================

BARDOLI SHREERANG EXHIBITORS PRIVATE LIMITED

Versus

MAHESHBHAI BABUBHAI HIRPARA

================================================================

Appearance:

MR R.R.MARSHALL, SR.ADVOCATE with MR ARPIT A.KAPADIA,

ADVOCATE for the Appellant.

MR KARTIKKUMAR K.JOSHI for the Respondent Nos. 1,2,3,4,7

MR JAY S.SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Respondent No.7.1

MR ANSHIN DESAI, SR.ADVOCATE with MR NISARG P.RAVAL,

ADVOCATE for the Respondent Nos.5-6.

==========================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA

and

HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI

Date : 28/09/2021

CAV JUDGMENT

Page 1 of 51

C/FA/1774/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 28/09/2021

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA)

1.

The impugned order passed by the court below rejecting

the plaint under the provisions of Order 7 Rules 11(a) and (d)

respectively of the Civil Procedure Code is running in 67 pages.

We wonder how many pages it would have taken for the

Presiding Officer to dictate a full-fledged judgement disposing of

the suit on merits. We are not able to understand why repeatedly

the very same mistakes are being committed by the courts below

while deciding the applications under the provisions of Order 7

Rule 11 of the CPC. Why the courts below are not ready to apply

their minds before passing an appropriate order in accordance

with law ? This very bench in last four months of the present

sitting must have passed not less than 25 orders explaining the

true purport and scope of the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of

the CPC, but all in vain. We have now started gathering an

impression that plaints are being rejected mechanically only with

a view to earn appropriate points as rejecting a plant is as good

as deciding the whole suit. We hope that such impression in our

mind is erroneous and not true.

2.

This Appeal is at the instance of the original plaintiff and is

directed against the judgement and order passed by the 4^th

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Navsari, dated 21^st March 2020

below Exhibit 142 in the Special Civil Suit No.50 of 2014

instituted by the appellant herein, by which the court below

rejected the plaint substantially on the ground that the suit

instituted by the plaintiff fails to disclose any cause of action and

the suit otherwise also is time barred.

Page 2 of 51

C/FA/1774/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 28/09/2021

3.

The facts giving rise to this Appeal may be summarised as

under :

4.

For the sake of convenience, the appellant herein shall be

referred to as the original plaintiff and respondents herein shall

be referred to as the original defendants.

5.

The Special Civil Suit No.50 of 2014 instituted by the

plaintiff pertains to a parcel of land with superstructure on it in

the form of a cinema theater situated in the Navsari town of the

State of Gujarat.

6