DOODHWALA JAMAD TRUST THROUGH THE PRESIDENT MR. ABDULHAQBHAI MOHAMMED HUSSAINBHAI SHEIKH vs NEW GUJARAT KABADI MARKET CORP
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/1246/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240059252026)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1246 of 2026
==========================================================
DOODHWALA JAMAD TRUST THROUGH THE PRESIDENT MR.
ABDULHAQBHAI MOHAMMED HUSSAINBHAI SHEIKH & ANR.
Versus
NEW GUJARAT KABADI MARKET CORP & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HRIDAY BUCH, ADVOCATE WITH MR. DHRUVIK K PATEL(7769) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,5,6,7,8
SIDDHARTH R KHESKANI(9483) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 22/10/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Special Civil Application seeks to challenge the order
dated 16.01.2026 by which, an application filed by the
judgment debtor being Exh.94 has been came to be allowed in
the following terms :-
“Order
1. The application, Exhibit 94, submitted by the plaintiff for
the appointment of a Court Commissioner is hereby allowed.
2. For this purpose, the City Survey Authority is directed to
measure the land as described in the application. The
concerned authority shall carry out the measurement of the
land in accordance with the details mentioned in Paragraph
6(A) of the present application and submit its report in
respect thereof before this Court. At this stage, the plaintiff is
directed to deposit a sum of ₹ 20,000/- towards the
Commissioner's fees before the concerned Court, in
accordance with the prescribed procedure.
3. Upon deposit of the Commissioner's fees, the Commission
Warrant shall be issued.
2. An examination of paragraph No.6A of the application
Page 1 of 5
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 26 10:42:52 IST 2026
C/SCA/1246/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240059252026)
Exh. 94 would show that the judgment debtor wanted the
measurement of the following portions of land namely Final
Plot No. 64 of Jamalpur Town Planning Scheme No. 1, bearing
the land admeasuring 9,551, 6,175, 3,000, and 400 sq. yards,
as well as the land admeasuring 6,175 sq. yards as delineated
in the map at Mark 82 of the suit, along with the original
boundary marks of the roads situated on the southern and
eastern sides.
3. Now going back to the decree which is sought to be
th
executed, it will be seen that the original decree of 27
September, 1984 decreeing the Civil Suit No.4342 of 1978,
the learned City Civil Court at Ahmedabad had passed the
following order :-
“(i) The suit is decreed and the defendants are ordered to
hand-over vacant and peaceful possession of 3000 sq. yards
of land which is to the north of and adjoining the sub-plot
admeasuring 6175 sq.yda. of land which was originally leased
to Shantilal Ambalal Shah, Jayantilal Hargovandas Mehta and
others under the lease deed dated 16th March 1965 and later
leasehold rights of which were purchased by the defendant
no.1 from them both constitution part of final plot no. 64
within three months from the date of this order. The
defendant no.1 shall pay the costs of the suit to the plaintiff.”
4. Therefore, the subject matter of execution of the decree
Page 2 of 5
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 26 10:42:52 IST 2026
C/SCA/1246/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240059252026)
in question ought to have been and is “3,000 sq. yards of land
which is north of and adjoining the sub-plot admeasuring
6,175 sq. yards”. It is further seen that this very judgment
debtor along with the other objectors had filed the joined
application being Exh. 31 dated 18.09.2025 by which they had
prayed for the following :-
“A. May be pleased to make an appropriate order giving
necessary directions to the bailiff that the possession
warrant issued by the Court does not include the land
measuring 6175 sq.yards out of the land lying in Plot No. 64.
B. May be pleased to pass an appropriate order appointing a
Court Commissioner to inspect and record the physical
location and condition of the land bearing Final Plot No. 64,
as delineated by the boundaries mentioned above, and direct
that the Commission conduct the inspection in the presence
of the parties and submit its report before this Court.
C. Grant any other and further relief(s) as this Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case, in the interest of justice.
5. In the said application, Exh.31, it is also seen that the
possession which is sought to be taken by the Bailiff is
described as under:-
“1. Survey no. 62, 63, 64 admeasuring 3,000 square yards of
the land which is to the north of and adjoining the subplot
admeasuring 6175 sq. yards situate in Jamalpur Town
Planning Scheme No. 1 Known as Panch Pir Kabrastan Land.
2. Possession of 3000 sq. yards of the land which is to the
north of and adjoining the sub-plot admeasuring 6175 sq. yds
of land which was originally leased to Shantilal Ambalal
Shah, Jayantilal Hargovandas Mehta and others under the
Page 3 of 5
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 26 10:42:52 IST 2026
C/SCA/1246/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240059252026)
lease deed dated 16th March 1965 and later lease hold rights
of which were purchased by the defendant no. 1 from them
both constitution part of final plot no. 64."
6. Therefore, it is clear that the Executing Court had been
proceeding exactly according to the decree of 1984 as
acknowledged by the applicants of Exh.31 which included the
judgment debtor. It is an admitted position that the aforesaid
th
application at Exh. 31 came to be rejected on 19 September,
2025 which is placed at Annexure ‘N’ at Page Nos.150 to 155
of the present petition. The impugned order dated 16.01.2026
arises out of a subsequent application dated 22.12.2025
where, one more attempt was made by the judgment debtor to
commend the Executing Court to execute the decree in a
mode and manner of its choice. This time, however, by way of
impugned order of the Executing Court has passed a blanket
order in terms of paragraph No.6A of the application at Exh.
94 by which, the decree -holder is aggrieved and has filed the
present petition.
7. By a mere comparison of decree sought to be executed
and the prayer at paragraph No.6A of Exh. 94, it is clear that
the Executing Court has been asked to go above and beyond
Page 4 of 5
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 26 10:42:52 IST 2026
C/SCA/1246/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240059252026)
the decree sought to be executed and by way of the impugned
order the Executing Court has, despite the earlier rejection of
Exh.31, in a similar terms as acceded to the prayers of the
judgment debtor which not only amounts to revisiting and
allowing the rejected application Exh.31 but to fundamentally
go behind the decree sought to be executed by it. It is further
clear to this Court that the purpose for repeatedly filing such
rd
applications by the judgment debtor as well as 3 party
objectors is to create evidence by which the decree itself can
be nullified. In my mind, these attempts need to be quashed at
the very outset so that the decree can be executed exactly as
intended.
8. In such view of the matter, the present petition is
allowed and the order dated 16.01.2026 passed by the learned
City Civil Court, Ahmedabad below Exh.94 in Executing
Petition No.178 of 2023 is hereby quashed and set aside.
Needless to add that all applications which may be filed or is
pending before the Executing Court shall be dealt with strictly
on merits.
(D.N.RAY,J)
BINA SHAH
Page 5 of 5
Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Mon Oct 26 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 26 10:42:52 IST 2026