IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2024 In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3536 of 2024 ==========================================================

DECEASED DAXABEN RAJNIKANT VORA THROUGH HER LEGAL HEIRS & ORS.

Versus SONAL D/O SHASHIKANT @ SHANKARLAL DESAI AND W/O KANAN MAHADEVBHAI DESAI & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MR ADIL R MIRZA(2488) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2,2 MR MANTHAN K BHATT(6549) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2 MR SAURABH M PATEL(5019) for the RESPONDENT(s) No.

3,4,5,6,7,8,9 MR. FARSHEED A KAVINA(14074) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA Date : 18/12/2025 IA ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE)

1. The Appeal has been admitted by an Order dated

17.10.2024. The present Civil Application comes up for hearing to grant relief which is prayed as under:

“7.(B) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this First Appeal; YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the opponents herein to maintain status quo with regards to the suit property, in the interest of justice;”

2. The present applicant – original plaintiff has been non suited on the ground of limitation by passing an order below an application under Order 7 Rule 11.

3. Learned advocate for the applicant has drawn our attention to the various documents which includes the unregistered agreement to sell executed between the applicant and the respondents and has also specifically referred to various clauses including the clause where an amount of Rs.54,11,000/- has been paid against the consideration of Rs.1 Crore 66 Lakhs and odd.

4. Learned advocate has submitted that the agreement to sell was followed by two other instruments in the year of 2007,2009,2016 and 2017 and in response to the public notice, which was issued in the year of 2019, a reply was given denying the existence of any of the executed documents. According to the applicant, therefore, the cause of action arose when the stand was taken by the respondents on 30.11.2019 denying the existence of the previous documents of 2007,2009 and 2016. However, the impugned judgment and order is passed on the basis that the cause of action was to commence in the year of 2017 when the acknowledgment deed was executed. According to the learned advocate for the applicant, the applicant having paid the consideration ought not to have been non suited on the ground of limitation, particularly, when the cause of action, according to the applicant, arose in the year of 2019, and therefore, filing of the suit on 03.10.2022 was perfectly within the limitation.

5. Learned advocate for the applicant has thereafter relied upon a CAV judgment dated 28.09.2021 in First Appeal No.1774 of 2020 and submitted that ordinarily the Court is slow in non suiting a plaintiff who has a cause of action demonstrated from the pleadings itself.

6. Learned advocate for the applicant has lastly submitted that to protect the interest, the relief prayed for is only to the extent that till the final disposal of the appeal, no further precipitation may take place with regards to the subject property, and therefore, the respondents be called upon not to alienate the same in any manner.

7. When the matter is taken up, learned senior advocate Mr.

Jal Unawala, under instructions and representing respondent no.1, makes a statement that the party shall not alienate the property in any manner without the permission of the Court. Similarly, for respondent nos.3 to 9, learned advocate Mr. Saurabh Patel has submitted that even pending the suit and after the filing of the appeal till date, no efforts have been made by the parties for causing any third party interest.

8. Learned advocate Ms. Meghna Patel for learned advocate Mr. Manthan Bhatt representing the respondent no.2 submitted that the cause of action qua the respondent no.2 had arisen only