IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8432 of 2024 ================================================================

KANTILAL OKHAJI BHATI Versus L H R OF RAMSUNGBHAI MADHABHAI & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MR HIMANSU M PADHYA(1611) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR.KISHORE PRAJAPATI(6305) for the Respondent(s) No. 6 NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No.

1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6,1.7,2,3,4,5 ================================================================

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

ORAL ORDER

1. The present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner-original plaintiff seeking following reliefs.

“(A) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to admit and allow this petition.

(B) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or a writ of Certiorari or in writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 9^th April 2024 passed by the learned trial Judge below Application at Exh.58 in Special Civil Suit No.32 of 2017, in the interest of justice.

(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the learned trial Judge to stay the proceeding of the Special Civil Suit No.32 of 2017 in the interest of justice.

(D) Or Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to stay the proceeding of the Regular Civil Suit no.303 of 1983 (E) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant ex-parte ad- interim relief in terms of Para (C) or (D)above in favour of the petitioners in the interest of justice.

(F) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass such other and further order or relief as may be deemed fit in the interest of justice.”

2. Learned advocate Mr. Himansu M. Padhya for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Kishore Prajapati for the respondent No.6

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

3.1. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner-original plaintiff had filed a suit seeking relief for declaration and permanent injunction as well as seeking a relief restraining respondent No.6 from encroaching the suit property. It is the further case of the petitioner that thereafter, petitioner filed an application Exhibit-5 for seeking interim injunction. The said application came to be dismissed by learned trial Court. The said order was assailed before learned Additional District and Sessions Court, which came to be rejected. Thereafter, plaintiff preferred an application below Exhibit-58 seeking amendment in the prayer clause as well as in the body of plaint. The said application came to be rejected.

3.2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the rejection of the application Exhibit-58, the present petitioner-original plaintiff has filed the present petition.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that plaintiff is the owner of 4 Gunthas of an agricultural land bearing Survey No.61/3 paiki 4 (New Survey No.230). Plaintiff also prayed for a relief that defendant No.6 be restrained by way of a permanent injunction. Boundaries of western side mentioned in the sale deed of Survey No.61/3 paiki 1 / paiki 1 (New survey No.230) owned by defendant No.6, has no right to make any encroachment of 355 feet by 263 feet and further prayed for a relief of injunction restraining defendants from creating any hindrance in the usage of the suit. The suit property, according to the plaintiff, is an open piece of land. Pending the suit, an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) was filed by the petitioner seeking amendment in Para 8 and Para 14 of the plaint, the proposed amendment is