A court must consider all relevant evidence and documents on record when deciding an application for temporary injunction; failure to do so justifies remanding the matter for a fresh hearing on merits.

JUDGMENT

1. The present Appeal from order is filed under Order XLXXX Rule 1 (r) and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter, referred to as “the Code”) by the appellants – original plaintiffs challenging the order dated 16.03.2026 passed by the learned Chamber Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad.

2. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Devang Nanavati assisted by learned advocates Mr. Vinay Bairagra, Mr. Vinayak Goswamy and Mr. Meghesh Khandelwal for the appellants and Ms. Natasha Sutaria for the respondent.

3. Learned Senior Advocate for the appellant submitted that the property in question was originally owned by Mr. Mahipatram Dolatram. Two release deeds dated 18.04.1968 came to be executed in favour of sons of Chimanlal Mahipatram, namely, father of plaintiff No.1 and father of defendant No.1. Release deed dated 18.04.1968 bearing Registration No. 1905, land admeasuring about 1565 sq. yards of Survey No.186/A/2 came in the share of father of defendant No.1 – Kiritkumar Chimanlal Parikh and by another release deed of the even date bearing Registration No. 1906, land admeasuring 1503 sq. yards bearing Survey No.186/A/2 came in the share of father of plaintiff No.1 – Ashwinkumar Chimanlal Parikh. Land admeasuring about 176 sq. yards of Survey No. 186-A-1 admeasuring about 88 square yards came to be allotted in favour of the father of plaintiff No.1 and father of defendant No.1. Upon finalizing of Town Planning Scheme No.14, the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation took possession of the land admeasuring about 176 square yards. Father of defendant No.1 purchased the adjoining plot admeasuring about 474 sq. yards from Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. Respondent No. 4 and 5 – original defendant Nos. 1 and 2 executed a registered sale deed on 08.08.2023 in favour of the present appellants – original defendant Nos.4, 5 and 6 of land bearing sub-plot No.241/1 of Final Plot No.241 of Town Planning Scheme No.14. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction praying for declaration that land admeasuring about 176 sq. yards as mentioned in the release deed dated 18.04.1968 is of joint ownership of plaintiff as well as defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3. The learned Trial Court while deciding the Application – Exhibit – 5, only considered the release deed dated 18.04.1968 executed in favour of the father of defendant No.1 for the land admeasuring about 1565 sq. yards, however, though a release deed bearing Registration No.1906 dated 18.04.1968 for the land admeasuring abut 1503 sq. yards of Survey No.186/A/2 was on record, the learned Trial Court did not consider the terms and conditions stipulated in the said release deed. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate all the evidence placed on record and carried away with mark 4/5.

4. Learned Senior Advocate for the appellants has taken this Court through the release deed dated 18.04.1968 bearing Registration No.1905 and contended that the learned Trial Court has not considered the said document while deciding Exhibit – 5. It is, therefore, submitted that the matter may be remanded back to the learned Trial Court for deciding Exhibit – 5 afresh after giving opportunity to both the sides to submit their respective arguments. Except above, no other submissions were made by learned Senior Advocate for the appellants.

. Per contra

5 , learned advocate for the respondent No.1, 2 and 3 – original plaintiffs have supported the judgment and order and contended that plaintiffs have been enjoying peac