##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CRA/19/2017 ORDER DATED: 05/02/2026

0.4012412657321234

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 19 of 2017

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

SAMIBAI JIVA PUNJA

Versus

AAMADKHAN HAJI MITHAKHAN BALOCH & ORS.

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

Appearance:

ABHIMANYU RATHOD(7347) for the Applicant(s) No. 1

MR MEHUL H RATHOD(701) for the Applicant(s) No. 1

MS. URVASHI PUROHIT, AGP for the Opponent(s) No. 2,4,5

MAJID L MANIYAR(8401) for the Opponent(s) No. 1

NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Opponent(s) No. 3

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

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

Date : 05/02/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. This revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) challenges

the legality and validity of the order dated 30.11.2015 passed by

the learned 3^rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bhuj-Kutch in RCS

No.256 of 2015, whereby the application filed under Order VII

Rule 11 of 'the Code' by the defendant No.1 was rejected.

2. The applicant is the original Defendant No.1 and

Respondent No.1 is the original plaintiff, whereas respondent

Nos. 2 to 5 are the original defendant Nos.2 to 5. For the sake of

brevity, parties are referred to as per their status before the

learned trial Court.

3. The facts in nutshell are as under:-

3.1 That land bearing Revenue Survey No. 222/1

admeasuring H-9-99-00 sq. meters of Moje Kunariya, Taluka

Page 1 of 11

Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Tue Feb 17 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 01 04:00:28 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CRA/19/2017 ORDER DATED: 05/02/2026

0.4012412657321234

Bhuj, District Kutch (Suit property) was originally granted to

father of respondent No.1, late Haji Mithakhan Baloch, under

provisions of the Bombay Inams (Kutch Area) Abolition Act, 1958

and thereafter same was inherited by respondent No.1 and other

co-owners.

3.2 That the applicant purchased the subject land by

registered sale deed bearing No.2720 dated 20.09.1982 (typed in

the plaint as 05.06.1982), registered before Sub-Registrar, Bhuj.

Said sale deed was executed by respondent No.1 and his brother

Muradkhan Mithakhan in favour of the applicant.

3.3 The respondent No.1 filed the suit praying for

declaration that registered sale deed dated 20.09.1982 (stated as

05.06.1982) be declared a bogus document and that subject

land is joint ownership of respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 has

further prayed for declaration that applicant has no right, title,

or interest in subject land and that applicant be restrained from

cultivating subject land. The suit has been registered as RCS

No.256 of 2014.

3.4 That the applicant filed an application at Exh.17 in

RCS No.256 of 2014 praying for rejection of plaint under Order 7

Rule 11 of ‘the Code’, inter alia, on ground that suit is barred by

law of limitation and also barred by provisions of the Bombay

Land Revenue Code and Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act.

3.5 That the applicant also filed written arguments vide

Exh.35 in support of application made at Exh.17 along with

judgments in support thereof and thereafter, respondent No.1

Page 2 of 11

Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Tue Feb 17 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Apr 01 04:00:28 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CRA/19/2017 ORDER DATED: 05/02/2026

0.4012412657321234

filed his reply vide Exh.21 to application at Exh.17, whereas by

the impugned order dated 30.11.2015, the learned Civil Judge

was pleased to reject application filed by applicant at Exh.17

under Order 7 Rule 11 of ‘the Code’.

3.6 Hence, the applicant is before this Court by way of

this revision application.

4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Abhimanyu Rathod

appearing for the applicant.

4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Abhimanyu Rathod placed

reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of

Uma Devi and others v. Anand Kumar and others, reported

in (2025) 5 SCC 198, judgment of this court in case of Casme

Industrial Park Development India Private Limited v. Pratik

Rameshc