PRAGNABEN GAUTAMBHAI VALA vs RAJESHBHAI JAMNADAS CHOKSI
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/CRA/464/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2026
(GJHC240616312026)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 464 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
PRAGNABEN GAUTAMBHAI VALA & ORS.
Versus
RAJESHBHAI JAMNADAS CHOKSI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RC SEJPAL(2636) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MS. ISHITA DHABALIA(18175) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 15/10/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. A. B. Munshi, learned advocate on behalf
of the revisionist and Mr. Bhaumik Dholaria, learned
advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 1 to 6.
2. The central contention raised by Mr. Munshi, learned
advocate for the revisionist is that the first Appellate Court
had erred in not exercising its discretion in permitting the
revisionist/plaintiff to withdraw the suit itself, inasmuch as,
the withdrawal purshish at Exh. 26 was not only for the
Page 1 of 7
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 13:40:55 IST 2026
C/CRA/464/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2026
(GJHC240616312026)
withdrawal of the appeal but for the withdrawal of the suit
itself. The grounds stated in the withdrawal purshish are
quoted hereinbelow for ready reference:
“The Trial Court has rejected the plaint under the
provisions of Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 meaning thereby, it is not
tried and adjudicated upon on merits. The
Judgment and Decree under challenge are from
the rejection of plaint without a full-fledged trial.
The Decree does not confer any right upon the
defendants upon such dismissal of suit.”
3. In the written statement in the suit following
contentions have been raised by the defendant/opponents:-
(15) Prior to the plaintiff's current Regular Civil Suit No.
59/2023 before the Honorable Court, the plaintiff has filed
the following suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 3/2007. In
this regard, it is to be stated that the plaintiff had filed a
partnership [suit] against the deceased Jamnadas
Mohanlal Choksi in connection with Regular Civil Suit No.
3/2007 and the said claim is pending before the
Honorable Court. The plaintiff had prayed for an interim
injunction in Regular Civil Suit No. 3/2007, which has
been dismissed by the Honorable Court. A copy of the suit
application, injunction application, and the following
order of Regular Civil Suit No. 3/2007 are produced vide
Mark.../2. The said suit is pending in the Honorable Court.
(16) The plaintiff in this matter has filed the current Suit No.
59/2023 before the Honorable Court, for specific
performance of an Exchange Deed ( Saatakhat ). The
property in the present suit and the property in Regular
Civil Suit No. 3/2007 filed by the plaintiff are one and the
same.
(17) The plaintiff in this matter has filed two suits for the same
Page 2 of 7
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 13:40:55 IST 2026
C/CRA/464/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2026
(GJHC240616312026)
property before the Honorable Court. The first suit, being
Regular Civil Suit No. 3/2007, has been filed to obtain
permanent injunction order, wherein the following reliefs
have been prayed for:
1) It is prayed that to hold and declare that, as a
partnership deed exists in respect of the land bearing
Survey No. 433 paiki situated at Babra, which is known
as J.M.C. Nagar, the parties are not entitled to transfer,
mortgage, or sell the same without the consent of
ourselves and other co-partners as detailed in the deed,
and to pass an order of permanent injunction to that
effect.
2)Whereas, the following relief has been prayed for
in Suit No. 59/2023:
To hold and decree that the defendants in this matter
execute a sale deed in respect of the plots of the
disputed property, which is the non-agricultural land
bearing Survey No. 433 paiki situated at village Babra,
Taluka Babra, District Amreli, consisting of open lands
Plots No. 1 to 25 and 34 to 38, and Plots A, B, and C,
admeasuring a total of 21,871.85 square yards.
Thus, two separate suits have been filed by the plaintiff
in the aforementioned suits.
These suits have been wrongly instituted by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff has filed the first suit vide Regular Civil
Suit No. 3/2007, on the basis of a partnership deed,
whereas the second suit vide Regular Civil Suit No.
59/2023, has been filed by the plaintiff on the basis of an
Exchange Deed ( Saatakhat ).
Thus, whether the plaintiff is a partner in the suit
property or a purchaser of the suit property stands
contradicted by these two suits. In other words, these
two suits have been filed falsely by the plaintiff with the
intention of grabbing our property.
(18) An important matter regarding Regular Civil Suit No.
Page 3 of 7
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 13:40:55 IST 2026
C/CRA/464/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2026
(GJHC240616312026)
59/2023 is to be stated to the Honorable Court that,
The plaintiff in this case, Gautambhai Vala, had filed
Regular Civil Suit No. 3/2007, and the plaintiff did not
mention anything whatsoever regarding the Exchange
Deed (Saatakhat) of the present suit in it. Rather, the
plaintiff submitted an affidavit of examination-in-chief in
Regular Civil Suit No. 3/2007 at Exhibit-27 on
08/04/2013, a copy of which is produced at Mark.../3.
In this affidavit of examination-in-chief, the plaintiff
makes the following admission in his cross-examination
on page no. 7:
"It has not happened that I have bought any land out
of the suit land or that I have made any deal to
acquire any land from this land."
Thus, when the present plaintiff admits the above fact
before the Honorable Court in the affidavit of
evidence in Regular Civil Suit No. 3/2007, it stands
proved that the exchange deed (Saatakhat) which is
subject matter of Regular Civil Suit No. 59/2023 was
never executed, and the plaintiff has not purchased
the property of the present suit. Rather, the exchange
deed produced in Regular Civil Suit No. 59/2023 was
false, bogus, and wrongly fabricated. Based on that
exchange deed, the present Suit No. 59/2023 has
been falsely fabricated. Thus, it stands proved that
the plaintiff has neither purchased the suit property
nor the possession of the suit property lies with the
plaintiff.
4. The central contention of Mr. Dholaria is that the
present suit is not the second but in fact the third suit, the
first suit having been filed through a different plaintiff but
regarding the same, the suit property whereas the earlier
suit of the year 2007 and the present suit of the year 2023 is
filed by the same plaintiff but with two complete different
causes of action as will be apparent from the written
Page 4 of 7
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 13:40:55 IST 2026
C/CRA/464/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2026
(GJHC240616312026)
statement. In the earlier suit, the property was claimed by
way of partnership whereas in the subsequent suit (present),
the claim is on the basis of an agreement to sell dated
04.11.1996. It is the categorical submission, that had the
agreement to sell dated 04.11.1996 was in existence and not
fabricated as alleged by the defendant, then the suit of 2007
could not have been filed claiming the property to be that of
a partnership. In such circumstances, apart from whatever
has been stated by the first Appellate Court in allowing the
withdrawal purshis to the limited extent of permitting the
withdrawal of the appeal, the gross facts of the case would
disentitle the plaintiff appellant/revisionist from any
discretionary relief namely the withdrawal of the suit itself
which is stated to have been filed under ill-advice of law.
5. Mr. Munshi submitted that since the application
under Order VII Rule 11 has been allowed and the suit has
been dismissed, it cannot be said that there was a trial of the
suit and consequently there was a decree in favour of the
plaintiff and therefore, there was no harm whatsoever and
no prejudice to the defendants if the withdrawal of the suit
would have been allowed by the first Appellate Court.
6. Mr. Munshi, learned advocate has referred and relied
upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
K. S. Bhoopathy and Others, V/s. Kokila And Others
reported in (2000) 5 SCC 458 as well as the judgment of
the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in case of Kantilal
Ambalal Patel since Deceased Through his Legal Heirs
Page 5 of 7
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 13:40:55 IST 2026
C/CRA/464/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2026
(GJHC240616312026)
V/s. Nakulal S. Paniker reported in 2024 (0) AIJEL-HC
250185.
7. It has been specifically argued that the first Appellate
Court in its discretion may have imposed suitable costs but
permitted the withdrawal of the suit itself based on the ratio
laid down in the aforesaid judgment.
8. In response, Mr. Dholariya, learned advocate has
further pointed out by referring to Section 2 (2) of the Civil
Procedure Code that the definition of ‘decree’ includes the
rejection of a plaint and it is not qualified therein that the
rejection has to be at the end of a full-fledged trial or by way
of allowing an application under Order VII Rule 11 and
therefore, the argument of Mr. Munshi, learned advocate
that there is no decree in the present suit and therefore, no
prejudice would be caused to the defendant is also
misplaced.
9. A perusal of the aforesaid decisions would show that
those were cases where the suit was decreed and therefore,
the question of consequential withdrawal of a suit on the
grounds stated in those applications came to be discussed by
the Hon’ble Court.
10. In the present case, it is seen that the
plaintiff/revisionist has filed one suit after another on one
frivolous ground after another, by manufacturing one new
cause of action after another, in seeking to persecute the
defendant and going after the suit property.
Page 6 of 7
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 13:40:55 IST 2026
C/CRA/464/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2026
(GJHC240616312026)
11. In the facts of the case, I find no equity or proper use
of discretion by which any reasonable person would have
held a bonafide belief that this was a fit case where the suit
itself ought to have been permitted to be withdrawn. The
plaintiff has repeatedly abused the process of law and
consequently in addition to the grounds provided by the first
Appellate Court in partly allowing the withdrawal purshis.
12. I find that it would be a travesty of justice if the
present revision application would be simply dismissed and
no suitable compensatory costs be awarded to the defendant.
In such circumstances, I deem it fit and appropriate to
dismiss the revision application along with costs of Rs.
50,000/- which should be payable within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which,
the same shall be recovered from the revisions as arrears of
land revenue.
(D.N.RAY,J)
VARSHA DESAI
Page 7 of 7
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 13:40:55 IST 2026