##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 441 of 2026 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ==========================================================

NIRAV MADHUKAR BUCH Versus LILABEN BHIKHUBHAI THAKOR & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MR. AADIT R SANJANWALA(9918) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT Date : 31/08/2026

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. Sanjanwala, learned advocate for the petitioner, at length.

2. The present revision application is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) against order dated 14.07.2026 passed by Principal Senior Civil Judge, Valsad, below Exh.115 in Special Civil Suit No.39 of 2019, whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

2.1. It is not in dispute that the impugned application was filed on 27.10.2025 below Exh.115, at the stage of recording of defendant’s evidence and now, the suit has reached to the stage of final arguments.

3. Mr. Sanjanwala, learned advocate, would submit that despite clear admission forthcoming from the side of plaintiff in his cross-examination that he was aware about the dispute germane to the suit since 1984, the suit was filed in the year 2019, then such suit is hopelessly time barred and noticing such admission on the part of the plaintiff, the trial court vide its impugned order dated 14.07.2026 could not have rejected the impugned application of petitioner filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC.

3.1 Mr. Sanjanwala, learned advocate, would submit that the registered sale deed executed in favour of the defendant No.7 in the year 2014 by the defendant Nos. 4 and 6 is not challenged in the suit though within knowledge of the predecessor of the plaintiff in year 2014 itself from whom the petitioner (defendant No.8) purchased the suit property by way of registered sale deed in the year 2019. It is submitted that the suit filed in the year 2019 only challenging the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner (defendant no.8), then the plaint is required to be rejected.

3.2 Mr. Sanjanwala, learned advocate, would further submit that merely because the impugned application was filed at the stage of recording of evidence of defendant and now the matter is at the stage of final arguments, it is no ground to reject the impugned application.

3.3 Mr. Sanjanwala, learned advocate, would further submit that as per settled preposition of law, the application can be filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC at the any stage of the proceeding of the suit and if a case is made out by the applicant, the trial court was supposed to decide such application on merit rather than rejecting it on technical grounds. It is further submitted that even the prayers made in the suit vis-a-vis the evidence on record, the suit itself is time barred and it would be futile exercise to allow such suit to proceed further, and to invest the time in final arguments and a final judgment would be an exercise in futility.

3.4 According to Mr. Sanjanwala, learned advocate for the applicant, the impugned application ought to have been allowed by the trial court once observed in the impugned order that suit is time barred, and this Court should exercise its revisional jurisdiction in favor of the petitioner.

4. No other and further submissions have been made by the learned advocate for the petitioner.

5. Having heard Mr. Sanjanwala, learned advocate for the applicant, prima facie, it appears that suit in question was instituted in the year 2019 and impugned application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, by petitioner-defendant no.8, on 27.10.2025 which came to be rejected by trial court vide