IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 126 of 2021 ==========================================================

BHIKHABHAI S/O HARIBHAI VALAND Versus ASHOKJI S/O BHIKHAJI THAKOR & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MR KISHAN N BRAHMBHATT(11382) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 RUSHI A BAROT(8993) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES for the Opponent(s) No. 7 RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s) No. 1,10,11,2,3,4,5,6,8,9 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI Date : 15/12/2025

ORAL ORDER

1. The present Civil Revision Application, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for the sake of brevity, “the Code”), is directed against the order dated 10.03.2021 passed below Exh. 12— an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code by the learned 2nd Additional Civil Judge, Civil Court, Sanand, in Regular Civil Suit No. 116 of 2020, whereby the application preferred by respondent No. 6 came to be dismissed.

2. The respondents to the present proceedings are inter se family members. The father of respondent No. 1, the grandfather of respondent Nos. 2 to 6, and the father of respondent Nos. 7 to 11 were real brothers. The applicant herein is the original defendant No. 6 and the sole contesting and affected party to the suit. The controversy revolves around land bearing Survey/Block No. 438, admeasuring 0-78-92, popularly known as “Godhavi Marg Vala Khetar”, situated at village Shela, Taluka Sanand, District Ahmedabad. The suit property originally stood in the name of one Budhaji Ranaji Thakor, father of respondent Nos. 7 to 11 and uncle/grand-uncle of respondent Nos. 1 to 6, whose name was duly mutated in the revenue record vide Mutation Entry No. 715/128. Upon his demise on 25.03.1984, the names of his legal heirs— respondent Nos. 7 to 11, were mutated in the revenue record vide Mutation Entry No. 1133.

2.1. Subsequently, on 21.12.1989, respondent Nos. 7 to 11 alienated the suit property in favour of Haribhai Bababhai Valand, father of the present applicant, by executing a registered sale deed, which was followed by Mutation Entry No. 1510 dated 30.01.1990. Thereafter, pursuant to a family arrangement dated 22.12.2000, the name of the applicant came to be mutated in the revenue record vide Mutation Entry No. 2369 and has continued to be reflected therein ever since. After an inordinate lapse of nearly three decades, respondent Nos. 1 to 6 instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 116 of 2020 seeking declaration, injunction, and cancellation of the sale deed dated 21.12.1989, contending that the suit property was ancestral in nature and that their predecessor had an undivided share therein. Upon service of summons, the applicant entered appearance and preferred an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code, inter alia, on the grounds of absence of cause of action and bar of limitation. The said application having been rejected by the learned 2nd Additional Civil Judge, Sanand, by order dated 10.03.2021, the applicant has approached this Court by invoking its revisional jurisdiction.

3. Learned Advocate for the Revisionist most submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court suffers from manifest errors apparent on the face of the record and is vitiated by jurisdictional infirmities, warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

3.1. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court has erred in law in exercising jurisdiction not vested in it, and further failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it, thereby rendering the impugned order unsustainable in the eyes of law. The order impugned is contrary to the settled principles of law, the factual milieu of the case, and the documentary evidence forming part of the record, which has culminated in gross miscar