HEIRS OF DECEASED JAYANTIBHAI KALUBHAI BHARVAD vs M/S HIMANSHU TEXTILE AND MANUFACTURING CO. A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/16955/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240860092025)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16955 of 2025
==========================================================
HEIRS OF DECEASED JAYANTIBHAI KALUBHAI BHARVAD & ORS.
Versus
M/S HIMANSHU TEXTILE AND MANUFACTURING CO. A PARTNERSHIP
FIRM & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS JAIKRITI SINH S.JADEJA, ADVOCATE FOR MR SAMIR AFZAL
KHAN(3733) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3
MR TATTVAM K PATEL(5455) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
DECEASED LITIGANT for the Respondent(s) No. 7
MR HARSH N PAREKH(6951) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 6,7.1,7.2,8
NOTICE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,5,9
PRIYAL M PARIKH(7593) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
SIDDHARTH R KHESKANI(9483) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 02/11/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Ms.Jaikritisinh S. Jadeja, learned advocate
appearing for Mr. Samir Afzal Khan, learned advocate for the
petitioners; Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Counsel with
Ms.Yukta Sumara, learned advocate on behalf of Mr.
Siddharth R. Kheskani, learned advocate for the respondent
no.1.
2. The challenge to the rejection of an Exh.5 [Injunction] in
Regular Civil Appeal No.73 of 2025 has been laid on the
Page 1 of 8
Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Mon Nov 02 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 02 19:42:19 IST 2026
C/SCA/16955/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240860092025)
following amongst other grounds:
(a) The learned Appellate Court erred in rejecting the Exh.
5 application solely on the strength of the Hon’ble Apex
Court’s orders in Civil Appeal Nos. 14140-14141 of 2024,
without properly appreciating the petitioners’ case in the suit
and appeal. The original appellant never pleaded that those
orders made them owners; no party relied upon them at trial,
no evidence was led, and the order was never exhibited. In a
first appeal, such an order cannot be considered without an
application for additional evidence and an opportunity to the
other side to object, which the petitioners were denied.
Moreover, the order concerns only conversion of land from
agricultural to non-agricultural use and does not adjudicate
the parties’ rights.
(b) The courts below ought to have appreciated that the
petitioners claim ownership of the land and, in their written
statement, contended that the suit under the Bombay Rent
Act is not maintainable, as the petitioners and other
defendants, being family members, are the owners and
Page 2 of 8
Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Mon Nov 02 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 02 19:42:19 IST 2026
C/SCA/16955/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240860092025)
occupants, with Civil Suit No. 188 of 1995 pending between
the parties. It is the contention of Ms.Jadeja that without
giving due weightage to the above, the Trial Court passed the
decree. The land belonged to Hajabhai Ranchodbhai from
1932 and devolved upon his sons, Bhagabhai and Bojabhai,
and then upon the petitioners and other respondents. Revenue
Entry Nos. 571 and 572 were mutated, and Survey Nos. 42/1,
15/2 and 339 were derived accordingly. The petitioners have
remained in continuous occupation since, and if the decree is
not stayed, grave prejudice will result.
3. Apart from the same, by filing a subsequent affidavit
dated 14.08.2026, it is contended that the basis of the
judgment of the learned Trial court dated 29.04.2025 by
which the suit was decreed against the defendant No.1
therein and further succeeding defendants, including the
defendant No.7 therein, has been founded on the observations
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal
No.14140-14141 of 2024 dated 10.12.2024, referred to in
Para-11 of the judgment and order of the learned Trial Court.
In Para-12 of the aforesaid judgment and order, it has been
Page 3 of 8
Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Mon Nov 02 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 02 19:42:19 IST 2026
C/SCA/16955/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240860092025)
further recorded as under:
“12) Thus, in the aforesaid background, the ownership of
the suit property land was challenged by and before the
revenue authority under the Tenancy Act. There is no
dispute between the predecessor of the plaintiff as regards
the transfer of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff.
Original document by certified copy is produced at Ex. 56.
Thus, the challenge to the title of the plaintiff over the suit
land is ultimately final settled before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court and the only issue left to be complied with the
plaintiff is to payment of the Government dues as N.A.
Charges prevalent on the date of 01.03.1994. So far the
rest of the issues as regards the handing over of the
possession by the defendant No.1 and ultimately in favour
of the defendant No. 5 to 8 and lastly occupation and
possession by the defendant No. 9, the evidence of the
defendants are important produced by documents and the
oral evidence, which are referred to in the tabular format
as per the Exhibit. The oral admission in the cross-
examination is the important piece of evidence for
deciding the fact-in-issue between the parties. Especially
when the documents admittedly in the evidence they are
subject to proof during trial. Cross-examination placed
vital roll in determining the admissibility of contents of
disputed documents. Therefore, at this stage it is relevant
to referred to and reproduced the cross-examination of the
defendant No.1, defendant No.5 and defendant No. 7
because the plaintiff has to prove his case against them for
the claim of arrears of rent and eviction from the Subletor
lastly in possession. And hence the same are as under.”
4. It has been submitted that by the order dated
20.07.2026, the Hon’ble Apex Court has clarified as under:-
“1. Application for permission to file Miscellaneous
Application is allowed.
2. Delay condoned.
Page 4 of 8
Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Mon Nov 02 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 02 19:42:19 IST 2026
C/SCA/16955/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240860092025)
3. Having heard learned senior counsel/counsel for the
parties, it is clarified that the civil suit, if any, filed by the
applicants shall be decided by the Court as per its own
merits, without being influenced by the judgment dated
10.12.2024 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal
Nos.14140-14141/2024. We are clarifying this aspect for
the reason that the applicants were not party respondents
in the above-mentioned civil appeals decided by this
Court.
4. IA No.69042/2026 (application for recall of the order)
and Miscellaneous Application(s) stand disposed of.
5. Pending application(s), if any, including IA
No.91370/2026 (application for impleadment), shall stand
closed.”
5. It is, therefore, the submission of learned counsel on
behalf of the applicants/petitioners that the basis of
decreeing the suit itself has been altered by the subsequent
order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore, until and
unless the Exh.5 as prayed for by the appellants/petitioners
herein is granted, the appeal itself would become infructuous,
and it would be a travesty of justice.
6. Per contra , Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Counsel on
behalf of the respondent No.1 has submitted by referring to a
concise list of dates, that apart from the multiple rounds of
litigation, which ensued at the behest of the
petitioners/appellants, which the petitioners have lost
Page 5 of 8
Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Mon Nov 02 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 02 19:42:19 IST 2026
C/SCA/16955/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240860092025)
throughout. The order dated 20.07.2026 passed by the
Hon’ble Apex Court sought to be relied upon by the
petitioners would categorically reveal that the clarification is
solely in respect of “...the civil suit, if any, filed by the
applicants…….” . In other words, this order will have bearing
upon the Regular Civil Suit No.188 of 1995, which is pending
even after 31 years and which has been filed by the
petitioners herein to challenge the sale deed dated
24.06.1971 in favour of the respondent No.1 after a period of
24 years from the execution of the said sale deed.
7. In such view of the matter, it cannot be said that any
observation which the learned Trial Court has referred to in
Para-12 of the said order against which the present petition
has been filed, can be said to be impacted by the order dated
20.07.2026 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
8. In my view, it is clear that on the plain language of the
order dated 20.07.2026, it cannot be said that the said order
can have any bearing on any other suit than “…...the civil suit,
if any, filed by the applicants………..”. The present appeal
being a continuation of the civil suit filed by the defendant
Page 6 of 8
Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Mon Nov 02 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 02 19:42:19 IST 2026
C/SCA/16955/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240860092025)
No.7 would certainly not be impacted by the order dated
20.07.2026 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
9. As far as the general submission that even otherwise,
this Court should interfere and pass an injunction which was
declined in the appeal, on the reasons provided by the learned
First Appellate Court while rejecting the Exh.5 filed by the
appellants/petitioners herein and on the conduct of the
proceedings up to this point by the petitioners/appellants,
particularly, in failing for more than two decades, after the
dismissal of their own suit, filed in the year 1995 in
challenging the title of the plaintiff/respondent No.1, where,
even today it is undeniable that the the said suit challenging
the sale deed of 1971 is at a nascent stage, where even the
service of summons post restoration is yet to be served upon
the present respondent No.1/defendants therein, I find that
the petitioners are not entitled for any discretionary relief
where the execution itself is at a final stage. Further, within
the limited scope of interference under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, particularly, where no egregious
error/circumstances warranting interference have been shown
by the petitioners herein, the present petition lacks merits
Page 7 of 8
Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Mon Nov 02 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 02 19:42:19 IST 2026
C/SCA/16955/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240860092025)
and is consequently dismissed. No order as to costs.
(D.N.RAY,J)
A. B. VAGHELA
Page 8 of 8
Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Mon Nov 02 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 02 19:42:19 IST 2026