MILANBHAI VISHNUBHAI PATEL vs SURESHBHAI RATILAL PATEL
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/14547/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2026
(GJHC240732702026)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14547 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
MILANBHAI VISHNUBHAI PATEL & ORS.
Versus
SURESHBHAI RATILAL PATEL & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS KIRAN N PATEL(11114) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3
MS KRISHNA S SHAH(13157) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3
MR. CHIRAG G BHATT(6286) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 08/10/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. S. P. Majmudar, learned advocate for
the petitioners and Mr. Chirag G. Bhatt, learned
advocate appears for the respondent no. 1 on Caveat.
2. With the consent of the learned advocates for the
respective parties, the matter is taken up for final
hearing.
3. It is clear on a perusal of the impugned judgment
and order dated 29.08.2026 that the first Appellate
Page 1 of 6
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 12:33:44 IST 2026
C/SCA/14547/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2026
(GJHC240732702026)
Court has reversed the rejection of Exh. 80 filed by the
plaintiffs. The principal ground of rejection is found in
paragraph nos. 17 and 18 of the impugned judgment,
which read as under:-
“17) Now, considering above mentioned facts and
circumstances and considering order dated
22.08.2025 passed by learned trial court, it appears
that, while deciding the application learned trial
court has observed that the plaintiff has filed original
suit for specific performance against the defendants,
inter alia seeking cancellation of the sale deed nos.
34292/2021 and 34295/2021 along with other
consequential reliefs in respect of the suit land
bearing Re-survey No. 1934 (Old Survey No.1483/2),
admeasuring 3,523 sq. mtrs., and Re-survey No. 1936
(Old Survey No.1483/1), admeasuring 3.828 sq. mtrs.,
situated at Village Randheja, District Gandhinagar. It
is undisputed that respondent No. I had purchased
the suit land through a registered sale deed and
thereafter sold the same to respondents No.2 and 3
for full consideration by executing a registered sale
deed, and the relevant revenue entries are also on
record. Though the plaintiff alleges that the deed
dated 25.01.2021 is forged, respondent No.1 has
disputed his signature therein; at this interlocutory
stage, the genuineness of such signature cannot be
conclusively determined and is a matter for trial.
18) The Ld. Trial Court has held that there is no
prima-facie case, balance of convenience and
irreparable injury in favour of the plaintiff and,
therefore, rejected the application filed by the
plaintiff. However, this Court is of the opinion that
the learned Trial Court, while deciding the
application below Exh.80, has not properly
considered the subsequent developments and
documents produced by the plaintiff, particularly the
alleged subsequent transaction in favour of
respondent No.4 during pendency of the suit. At the
Page 2 of 6
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 12:33:44 IST 2026
C/SCA/14547/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2026
(GJHC240732702026)
time, when impugned order was passed by the Ld.
Trial Court, the alleged agreement in favour of the
respondent no. 4 was not executed. Thereafter, the
respondent no. 2 and 3 have sold the land in favour of
the respondent no. 4, this transaction only is
sufficient to come to the conclusion that the plaintiff
has prima-facie case. Hence, if no status quo is
granted at this stage, there is a possibility that
respondent no. 4 may further sell the suit land to
some other party., which would give rise to
multiplicity of litigation. The multiplicity of litigation
cannot be the object of any order being passed by
that Court. The balance of convenience also lies in
favour of the plaintiff, as any further alienation of the
suit land may render the suit infructuous and cause
irreparable loss and injury to the plaintiff.”
4. From the narration of the facts, it is clear that
after the initial rejection of Exh. 5 on 13.06.2023, the
plaintiffs neither preferred any appeal against the said
rejection nor had any reason to be aggrieved by such
rejection of Exh. 5. According to the plaintiffs, a
separate cause of action arose when a public notice
dated 13.06.2025 was published in the Gujarat
Samachar newspaper inviting objections for the
issuance of a Title Clearance Certificate in favour of the
third party. It is only under these circumstances that
Exh. 80 was filed. It appears that the subsequent
transferee has been added as defendant no. 4 and
thereafter, an application seeking an injunction of
transfer of the property in question to the said
defendant no. 4 has been filed before the Suit Court, on
21.06.2025.
Page 3 of 6
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 12:33:44 IST 2026
C/SCA/14547/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2026
(GJHC240732702026)
5. From the reasons in the Appellate Court’s
judgment, I find that the decision to reverse the Suit
Court's adjudication on Exh. 80 has been premised
solely on the doctrine of multiplicity of litigation. The
Appellate Court has not dealt with how a prima facie
case has been established by the plaintiffs while
preferring an application, essentially under Order
XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. While dealing with
the three ingredients necessary to pass an affirmative
order under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, the learned
Appellate Court has held in paragraph no. 19 as under:-
“19. As the respondents are attempting to alienate the
suit land to a third party during pendency of the suit,
they are liable to be restrained to prevent prejudice to
the Appellant and multiplicity of proceedings. The
three ingredients under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of
the CPC are thus satisfied. The effect of such
transaction, the applicability of Section 52 of the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the three essential
ingredients of temporary injunction, namely prima
facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable
injury, therefore require consideration. The plaintiff
has alleged that the respondents are attempting to
alienate the suit land during pendency of the suit,
thereby causing injury, which may not be
adequately compensated in monetary terms and
may result in multiplicity of proceedings.
Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the rival claims, this Court finds it just
and proper to set aside the impugned order below
Exh.80.”
6. Therefore, it is clear that except "multiplicity of
Page 4 of 6
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 12:33:44 IST 2026
C/SCA/14547/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2026
(GJHC240732702026)
proceedings", no other ingredient, has even been
discussed. It is also noted that the learned Appellate
Court has provided the following reasons on the merits
of the matter as under:
“Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the rival claims, this court finds it just and
proper to set aside the impugned order below Exh.
80."
7. In view of the aforesaid findings, the order
impugned is conspicuous by its abject lack of reasoning
and the ingredients necessary for setting aside a
reasoned order of the suit Court and for imposing an
order of injunction on a party which had failed, in the
first instance, in securing an order of injunction and
was admittedly not aggrieved by such rejection,
inasmuch as, no appeal whatsoever was filed against
such rejection, thereby accepting the rejection of the
injunction.
8. In such view of the matter, following the dicta of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down in a catena of
decisions, most notably in Wander Ltd. v. Antox India
Private Ltd. reported in 1990 Supp (1) SCC 27 wherein
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that
the Appellate Court will not interfere with the exercise
of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute
its own discretion except where the discretion has been
Page 5 of 6
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 12:33:44 IST 2026
C/SCA/14547/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2026
(GJHC240732702026)
shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or
capriciously or perversely or where the court had
ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or
refusal of interlocutory injunctions.
9. The decision of the first appellate court is in the
teeth of the law laid down by the apex court in Wander
(supra).
10. In such view of the matter, the impugned
judgment and order dated 29.08.2026 is hereby set
aside. The present petition is hereby allowed.
(D.N.RAY,J)
VARSHA DESAI
Page 6 of 6
Uploaded by VARSHA DESAI(HC01393) on Fri Oct 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 12:33:44 IST 2026