C/CRA/447/2024 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 447 of 2024 ========================================================== TAPUBHAI HARIBHAI NAKUM Versus DAYALJI NARANBHAI PARMAR ========================================================== Appearance: MR VIRAL V DAVE(3846) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI Date : 04/12/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Viral Dave for the petitioner. 2. Though served, none remained present for the respondent. 3. Instant CRA "led u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is directed against the judgment and order passed below Exh.15 in Regular Civil Suit No.75 of 2023, whereby the learned trial Court declined to reject the plaint "led under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code, inter alia on the ground that Order 7 Rule 11 (E) and (F) of the Code are not attracted in the matter. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that the learned trial Court has mired the application "led by the C/CRA/447/2024 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2025 defendant for rejection of the plaint Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code. He would further submit that the plainti8 is not raising any substantial course of action. He would further submit that the course of action should be stated by the defendant at page 33 of the present petition and the course of action pleaded in favour of the plainti8 against the defendant is blur. The plainti8 who claims that he is the owner of the open land particulars of which is stated at Annexure A, failed to produce any documentary evidence, which at "rst blush, proves that the plainti8 is the owner of the said open land. He would further submit that as against that, the defendant relied upon the Bandhkam Rajachitthi issued by the Hadyana Gram Panchayat in favour of the defendant, which permitted him to carry out construction on the plot allotted to him by Hadyana Gram Panchayat. In the aforesaid circumstances, he would submit that the course of action pleaded by the plainti8 is blur and the plaint was required to be rejected. Upon above submission, learned advocate Mr. Dave prays to allow this petition. 5. At the outset, let me refer the pleadings in the plaint to the e8ect that the plainti8 claims that he is the owner of the open land particulars of which is stated in Annexure A and the defendant is trying to encroach upon the said land by carrying out construction. It is further averred in the plaint that the defendant has encroached the land upto 10 ft, which is originally belonged to the plainti8, by digging pillars. This is the course of action stated by the plainti8 seeking relief of declaration and injunction against the defendant. Page 2 of 4 C/CRA/447/2024 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2025 6. What could be noticeable that the plainti8 claims that he is the owner of the particular land, particulars of which are stated in Annexure A. The plainti8 was required to place on record document to support his claim. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr. Dave that no such document was produced by the plainti8, which could establish that the plainti8s is the owner of the land, particulars of which are stated in Annexure A. 7. Perusal of the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court demonstrates that the learned trial Court without understanding the issue raised by the defendant, referred to certain provisions of law and believed that the suit did not require rejection. The learned trial Court referred to Order 7 Rule 11 (E) and (F) of the Code and discussed said provision to consider that there is no ground to reject the plaint. However, it is not the case of the defendant. The issue of Order 7 Rule 11 (E) and (F) of the Code was never raised by the defendant before the learned trial Court. Therefore, it appears that the learned trial Court has completely misread the contention raised by the defendant. Therefore, the order under challenge is required to be set aside. 8. For the foregoing reasons, present petition is allowed and impugned judgment and order passed below Exh.15 in Regular Civil Suit No.75 of 2023 dated 25.6.2024 is hereby quashed and set aside. 8.1 Application Exh.15 in Regular Civil Suit No.75 of 2023 is restored to its original proceedings. C/CRA/447/2024 ORDER DATED: 04/12/2025 8.2 The learned trial Court is directed to decide application Exh.15 afresh in accordance with law without being in@uenced by this order so also the impugned order, and after hearing learned advocates for both the sides. (J. C. DOSHI,J) SHEKHAR P. BARVE Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: SHEKHAR PRAFULBHAI BARVE(HC00200), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 04/12/2025 16:07:15