Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Guj) 983

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
DEVAN M. DESAI, J.
Nimeshbhai Navinchandra Desai - Appellant
Versus
Manishbhai Kiritbhai Shah & Ors. - Respondent
Civil Revision Application No. 421 of 2025
Decided On : 21-04-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Adit V Pancholi(14657), Ms Tejal A Vashi with Ms Divya Raval
For the Respondent: Mr Dhaval A Parmar, AGP, Mr Arpit Kataria(11981), Mr SP Majmudar(3456)

A private defendant lacks the legal standing to challenge a suit's maintainability based on a plaintiff's failure to serve a mandatory statutory notice upon a government body. Such notice requirements are personal, waivable protections for public authorities, not rights exercisable by private third-party defendants.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Specific Relief - Statutory Notice Requirement - Maintainability of Suit - A private defendant cannot challenge the maintainability of a suit on the ground that the plaintiff failed to serve a statutory notice upon a public authority. Such notice is a protective provision intended for the benefit of the government or public officials, and only those entities have the right to assert or waive this requirement. A third-party litigant does not possess the status to seek rejection of a plaint based on the lack of notice to a public body. Whether the cause of action is valid or if the alleged acts were performed in good faith are questions of fact that must be addressed during the trial. (Paras 10, 13)

(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - High Court - Section 115 - The jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere in revisions is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors. A trial court’s decision to reject a motion for dismissal at the threshold stage should not be disturbed when the averments in the plaint necessitate the recording of oral evidence. (Para 14)

Facts of the case:
A suit was initiated seeking the demolition of unauthorized commercial construction and an injunction against further construction activities. The defendant filed an application for the rejection of the plaint, arguing that the suit was premature due to the plaintiff's failure to provide mandatory statutory notice to relevant public authorities. The trial court declined to reject the plaint, leading the applicant to file a revision application.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the public bodies, who were also defendants, did not appeal the trial court's decision, effectively settling the issue regarding the sufficiency of notice. It determined that the requirement for statutory notice is a procedural safeguard exclusively for the protection of public entities and cannot be leveraged by a private individual to challenge the suit's maintainability.

Issues: The primary issue was whether a private defendant has the legal standing to challenge a suit’s maintainability on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to serve a mandatory statutory notice upon a government or public authority.

Ratio Decidendi: The statutory requirement for prior notice before litigating against a public functionary is a waivable right held by the authority concerned. It serves as a protection for the state and not as a tool for private litigants to avoid answering claims regarding their own unauthorized actions; therefore, the absence of such notice to a third-party public entity does not render the suit inherently non-maintainable against a private party.

Result: Civil Revision Application rejected.

Table of Content
1. establishment of facts and procedural history of the suit. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. parties' contentions regarding the maintainability of the suit and necessity of statutory notice. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
3. statutory notice under section 270 of the gujarat panchayat act and section 80 of the code is a protective right exclusively for public authorities, not private defendants. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. limited scope of revisional jurisdiction and dismissal of the civil revision application. (Para 14)

JUDGMENT :

DEVAN M. DESAI, J.

1. Present Civil Revision Application is filed by the applicant – original defendant No.1 under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) for setting aside common order dated 05.04.2025 passed below Exhibit–16 and Exhibit–18 in Regular Civil Suit No.11 of 2024 by Principal Senior Civil Judge, Karjan.

2. Heard learned advocate Ms. Tejal A. Vashi with learned advocate Ms Divya Raval for the applicant and learned advocate Mr. S.P majmudar for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

3. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. S.P. Majmudar waives service of notice of Rule for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

4. With the consent and request of learned advocates for the parties, the present application is taken up for final disposal.

5. Brief facts are as under:-

5.1. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the father of defendant No.1 was allotted a land admeasuring about 518 square metres of Survey No.488/A situated in Mouje Saghli, Taluka-Shinore, District-Vadodara by defendant No.4-District Collector, Vadodara. An application for seeking commercial construction was rejected by defendant No.2-Talati-cum-Mantri of Saghli Gram Panchayat. As defendant No.1 without any permission of competent authority started commercial construction on the suit land, plaintiffs issued legal notices dated 20.10.2023 and 26.12.2023 to defendant Nos.2 to 4 for taking appproriate actions and for removal of constructions. As no steps were taken by defendant Nos.2 to 4, plaintiffs filed the suit praying for declaration that construction carried out by defendant No.1-present petitioner be declared as illegal and defendant Nos.2 to 4-present respondent Nos.1 and 2 be directed to remove construction together with a relief of permanent injunction restraining defendant No.1 from raising further construction and restraining defendant No.1 from transferrig and / selling the suit property. Defendant No.1 and defendant Nos.2 to 4 filed separate applications below Exhibit-16 and 18 respectively under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code for rejection of plaint.

5.2 Learned Trial Court after hearing the parties rejected both the applications. Defendant No.1 being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the rejection of the application, is before this Court. It is informed by learned advocates for the parties during the course of the hearing that defendant Nos.2 to 4 have not assailed the order of rejection of application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code and it has attained finality so far as defendant Nos.2 to 4 are concerned.

6. Learned advocate for the petitioner contended that the suit of the plaintiff is a premature suit. It is contended that before institution of the suit, the plaintiff was required to issue a statutory notice under Section 270 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993. It is submitted that the alleged notice is sent on 26.12.2023 and the suit is filed on 17.01.2024. It is further contended that the alleged notice is not as per the requirements of Section 270 (2) of the Act. It is further submitted that there is a clear bar of action against Panchyat or its officers or agents or members of the Panchyat, untill expiration of one month notice in wrirting is left or delivered, no suit shall be instituted. Section 270 (2) of the Act also mandates that the notice needs to be sent to the residence of the officer or agents or servant of panchayat against whom an action is intended to be taken. Learned ad

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Guj) 983

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADDEVAN M. DESAI, J.Nimeshbhai Navinchandra Desai - AppellantVersusManishbhai Kiritbhai Shah & Ors. - RespondentCivil Revision Application No. 421 of 2025Decided On : 21-04-2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
DEVAN M. DESAI, J.
Nimeshbhai Navinchandra Desai - Appellant
Versus
Manishbhai Kiritbhai Shah & Ors. - Respondent
Civil Revision Application No. 421 of 2025
Decided On : 21-04-2026