IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 623 of 2021 ================================================================

PUSHPABEN VELJIBHAI SHETA & ORS.

Versus DECD BABUBHAI JELABHAI AHIR & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MR RUTUL P DESAI(6498) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3 DECEASED LITIGANT for the Opponent(s) No. 10,11,4 DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES for the Opponent(s) No. 3 MR TATTVAM K PATEL(5455) for the Opponent(s) No. 3.1,3.2,3.3,3.4 MR YOGESHKUMAR PATEL(2601) for the Opponent(s) No.

3.1,3.2,3.3,3.4,4.1,4.2,4.3,5,6,7 NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s) No. 11.1,11.2,11.3,11.4 NOTICE UNSERVED for the Opponent(s) No. 10.1,10.2,10.3,8,9 ================================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI Date : 09/02/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. The present Civil Revision Application is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) by the applicants-original defendant Nos.1, 2 and 7 assailing the judgment and order dated 03.11.2021 passed by Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathor, District-Surat in New Special Civil Suit No.21 of 2018 (Old Special Civil Suit No.166 of 2005), whereby the application under Order VII Rule

11 (a) (d) of the Code came to be rejected.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Amit V. Thakkar assisted by the learned advocate Mr. Rutul P. Desai for the applicants and learned Senior Advocate Ms. Trusha K. Patel assisted by the learned advocate Mr. Tattvam K. Patel for the respondent Nos.3 to 6.

3. The brief facts of the case are as under:-

3.1 The plaintiffs present respondent Nos.1 and 2 has filed a suit for declaration that plaintiffs are the owners of the suit land bearing Khata No.104, Survey No.199/2, 197, 202/1 (New Block No.165) admeasuring about 5-55-33 hectare Are square metres. Plaintiffs further prayed for cancellation of a registered sale deed dated 14.07.1997 being against the provisions of law and non-payment of consideration. Plaintiffs further prayed for a relief of cancellation of a registered sale deed dated 15.09.2004 executed in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2 being null and void on the ground of illegal and non-payment of consideration. Plaintiffs further sought for a relief of protection of the possession of the suit property and also prayed for a relief of permanent injunction restraining defendants from transferring or selling the suit property. Pending the suit, after framing of issues, defendant No.1, 2 and 7 filed an application Exhibit-256 under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the Code for rejection of the plaint on the ground of want of cause of action as well as on the ground of limitation. Learned trial Court after considering the submissions rejected the said application.

3.2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the rejection of the application, applicants-original defendant Nos.1, 2 and 7 have filed the present Civil Revision Application.

4. Learned advocate for the applicants contended that the plaintiffs in the suit have admitted the execution of a registered sale deed dated 14.07.1997. By clever drafting, plaintiffs have created an illusion of a cause of action. To demonstrate that the plaintiffs’ plaint is required to be rejected under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the Code, learned advocate for the applicants has taken this Court through the averments made in the plaint and the sale deeds dated 14.07.1997 and 15.09.2004. It is further contended by learned advocate for the applicants that plaintiffs sold the suit land to original defendant Nos.3 and 4 by a registered sale deed dated 14.07.1997. Plaintiffs are the signatory of the said sale deed dated 14.07.1997. It is clearly mentioned in the sale deed that plaintiffs have handed over peaceful and vacant possession of the suit land after receiving full consideration. The averments mad