JUDGMENT :

SANGEETA K. VISHEN, J.

1. Captioned civil application No.3285 of 2024 is for seeking leave to file appeal challenging the order as well as consent decree, both dated 11.02.2023 passed by the learned 26th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara in Special Civil Suit No.277 of 2022. Similarly, in civil application No.3288 of 2024, the applicant is seeking leave to file appeal to challenge the order dated 21.01.2023 passed below Exhibit 1 so also the decree of the same date by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara in Special Civil Suit No.11 of 2023. Since both the applications are connected, parties being common so also the issue, they are being disposed of by this common oral judgment. Parties have been referred to as per their status in civil application No.3285 of 2024.

2. Mr Archit P. Jani, learned advocate appearing for the applicant, submitted that the applicant has Agreement to Sell dated 17.03.2022 in his favour, executed by the respondents, except respondent No.10. It is submitted that Special Civil Suit No.277 of 2022 was filed by the respondents against the respondent No.10, seeking cancellation of the alleged Agreement to Sell executed on 01.01.2013, only with a view to ifying the rights of the applicant. Another Special Civil Suit No.11 of 2022 was filed by the respondent No.10 seeking specific performance of the said Agreement to Sell dated 01.01.2013 against the rest of the respondents.

2.1 It is submitted that it is surprising to note that the Special Civil Suit No.11 of 2023 was filed on 11.01.2023 and respondent No.9 appeared on 13.01.2023 on his behalf and on behalf of the others and immediately within a span of 10 days i.e. on 21.01.2023, it was disposed of on the ground of settlement. Similarly, the Special Civil Suit No.277 of 2022 was disposed of on 11.02.2023. It is further submitted that the applicant was not made party in any of the suits filed by the respondents individually or jointly.

2.2 It is next submitted that respondent No.9 preferred a Special Civil Suit No.14 of 2023 seeking cancellation of the registered Agreement to Sell dated 17.03.2022; however, subsequently, on 14.07.2023 it came to be withdrawn simplicitor. It is submitted that the details of the suits and the Agreement to Sell were missing; however, the suit was withdrawn with an assurance that the sale deed would be executed in favour of the applicant.

2.3 It is submitted that after the passing of the consent decree, Execution Petition was filed and as a result, on 08.04.2023, order has been passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge appointing the Court Commissioner. It is thereafter, that the registered sale deeds have been executed by the Court Commissioner. It is submitted that the applicant having no option had to file a Special Civil Suit No.299 of 2023 seeking specific performance of the Agreement to Sell dated 17.03.2022 and is pending. It is submitted that the applicant is severely prejudiced by the consent decree inasmuch as, it had paid consideration of Rs.50 lacs and when there is a registered Agreement to Sell coupled with the consideration, the respondents i.e. original owners have no option but to execute sale deed in his favour.

2.4 It is submitted that it is also not in dispute that at the time of execution of the registered Agreement to Sell, there were no civil cases pending by the original owners or against the original owners. So far as the so called Agreement to Sell dated 01.01.2013 in favour of the respondent No.10 is concerned, the same also creates a doubt inasmuch as, for almost 10 years, no steps were taken and only in the years 2022 and 2023, the suit proceedings were initiated. It is submitted that the suits were filed only with a view to seeing that the rights of the applicant is prejudiced. Surreptitious filing of the suits by the respondents, inter se, was nothing but an abuse of process of law.

2.5. Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Sakina Sultanali Sunesara (M