NIRAV MADHUKAR BUCH vs LILABEN BHIKHUBHAI THAKOR

C/CRA/441/2026 (GJHC240611602026) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 441 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
NIRAV MADHUKAR BUCH
Versus
LILABEN BHIKHUBHAI THAKOR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. AADIT R SANJANWALA(9918) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT

Date : 31/08/2026

JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. Sanjanwala, learned advocate for the
petitioner, at length.
2. The present revision application is filed under Section
115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred
to as “ CPC ”) against order dated 14.07.2026 passed by
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Valsad, below Exh.115 in Special
Civil Suit No.39 of 2019, whereby the trial court dismissed the
application filed by petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.
2.1. It is not in dispute that the impugned application was
Page 1 of 9
Uploaded by DEEPAK GEHLOT(HC02361) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 18:48:51 IST 2026

C/CRA/441/2026 (GJHC240611602026) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
filed on 27.10.2025 below Exh.115, at the stage of recording of
defendant’s evidence and now, the suit has reached to the
stage of final arguments.
3. Mr. Sanjanwala, learned advocate, would submit that
despite clear admission forthcoming from the side of plaintiff in
his cross-examination that he was aware about the dispute
germane to the suit since 1984, the suit was filed in the year
2019, then such suit is hopelessly time barred and noticing
such admission on the part of the plaintiff, the trial court vide
its impugned order dated 14.07.2026 could not have rejected
the impugned application of petitioner filed under Order VII
Rule 11(d) of CPC.
3.1 Mr. Sanjanwala, learned advocate, would submit that the
registered sale deed executed in favour of the defendant No.7
in the year 2014 by the defendant Nos. 4 and 6 is not
challenged in the suit though within knowledge of the
predecessor of the plaintiff in year 2014 itself from whom the
petitioner (defendant No.8) purchased the suit property by way
of registered sale deed in the year 2019. It is submitted that
the suit filed in the year 2019 only challenging the sale deed
executed in favour of the petitioner (defendant no.8), then the
Page 2 of 9
Uploaded by DEEPAK GEHLOT(HC02361) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 18:48:51 IST 2026

C/CRA/441/2026 (GJHC240611602026) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
plaint is required to be rejected.
3.2 Mr. Sanjanwala, learned advocate, would further submit
that merely because the impugned application was filed at the
stage of recording of evidence of defendant and now the
matter is at the stage of final arguments, it is no ground to
reject the impugned application.
3.3 Mr. Sanjanwala, learned advocate, would further submit
that as per settled preposition of law, the application can be
filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC at the any stage of the
proceeding of the suit and if a case is made out by the
applicant, the trial court was supposed to decide such
application on merit rather than rejecting it on technical
grounds. It is further submitted that even the prayers made in
the suit vis-a-vis the evidence on record, the suit itself is time
barred and it would be futile exercise to allow such suit to
proceed further, and to invest the time in final arguments and
a final judgment would be an exercise in futility.
3.4 According to Mr. Sanjanwala, learned advocate for the
applicant, the impugned application ought to have been
allowed by the trial court once observed in the impugned order
that suit is time barred, and this Court should exercise its
Page 3 of 9
Uploaded by DEEPAK GEHLOT(HC02361) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 18:48:51 IST 2026

C/CRA/441/2026 (GJHC240611602026) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
revisional jurisdiction in favor of the petitioner.
4. No other and further submissions have been made by the
learned advocate for the petitioner.
5. Having heard Mr. Sanjanwala, learned advocate for the
applicant, prima facie, it appears that suit in question was
instituted in the year 2019 and impugned application filed
under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, by petitioner-defendant
no.8, on 27.10.2025 which came to be rejected by trial court
vide its impugned order dated 14.07.2026. It is not disputed by
the petitioner that the impugned application was filed after
oral evidence of plaintiff had concluded and during the
recording the defendant’s evidence. It is also not in dispute
that the suit has reached to the stage of final arguments.
Today, it is a date of final arguments before the trial court.
6. Prima facie , the entire emphasis of the defendant no.8 to
reject the plaint, is on the basis of the so-called admission
forthcoming during the cross-examination of the plaintiff. The
petitioner unfortunately could not understand the difference
between scope and interference of the Court to reject the
plaint at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and dismissal of
the suit upon appreciation of evidence. One cannot dispute
Page 4 of 9
Uploaded by DEEPAK GEHLOT(HC02361) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 18:48:51 IST 2026

C/CRA/441/2026 (GJHC240611602026) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
that plaint, which can only be rejected by a bare reading of the
plaint only. The defence and documents of the defendant
cannot be looked into by Court while adjudicating the
application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. According
to the defendant no.8, certain admissions have been made by
plaintiff during his cross-examination and the documents which
are filed by the defendant might also have been admitted by
plaintiff. At the same time, such admission and evidence
cannot be looked into by the Court while examining an
application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.
7. Apart from the aforesaid facts, the stage at which the
petitioner filed the impugned application under Order VII Rule
11 is also required to be taken into account by this Court. It
has been observed and experienced by this Court that filing an
application under Order VII Rule 11 at any stage of the
proceedings is nowadays misused by defendant and for any
reason, such application being filed either to delay the
adjudication of the suit or not to lead evidence to prove his
case. Merely because the defendant has right to file an
application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC at any stage of
proceeding would not mean that the defendant can be
Page 5 of 9
Uploaded by DEEPAK GEHLOT(HC02361) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 18:48:51 IST 2026

C/CRA/441/2026 (GJHC240611602026) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
permitted to file such application at the fag end of trial.
7.1 At this juncture, it would be apt to refer to and rely upon
the full bench decision of Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in
the case of M/s Bhagya Estate Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., Civil Appeal No.4570 of
2023 dated11.09.2024, wherein it has noticed such type of
practice of defendant and held thus:
“ 12. The above position holds good as we are not of the opinion that
issuance of summons shall foreclose the right of the defendant to seek
rejection of plaint; but the focal issue for consideration is that till
when and for how long can this right of the defendant survive?
13. It is amply clear that the purpose behind such a provision is to
ensure that the plaints or petitions which are defective, for any of the
reasons enumerated, shall not be allowed to proceed further and shall
be put to an end before they progress to an advanced stage. When such
is the purpose, we fail to understand as to how an application for
rejection of a plaint can be entertained at a stage where written
submission has already been filed, evidence has been led and the trial
has substantially reached the stage of final arguments, as in the
present case. This would rather go completely against the objective of
the provision and would effectively not serve the purpose which it
intended to.
14. Moreover, when the proceedings have reached such an advanced
stage of trial and the Court has gone through the merits of the case, it
is fair to presume that the Court has already applied its mind to the
substantive submissions and cannot make a prima facie conclusion
about a plaint being improper at the outset or not. Also, it is a settled
position of law that when the court is considering an application under
Order VII Rule 11, it must only peruse and consider the averments in
the plaint to check whether the plaint is defective for any of the reasons
provided under the rule or is a proper plaint. Since the plaint is the
only material to be considered while deciding an application seeking
Page 6 of 9
Uploaded by DEEPAK GEHLOT(HC02361) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 18:48:51 IST 2026

C/CRA/441/2026 (GJHC240611602026) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
rejection of plaint, then in a case where plaint has been registered,
written submission has been filed, evidence has been recorded, and
the parties are ready for final arguments, it is only natural that some
form of bias or opinion regarding the merits of the case would crop
up in the mind of the court. In such a scenario, looking at the plaint
in isolation and deciding the rejection application based solely on
prima facie reading of the plaint would not be possible. At this point,
the trial has rather fructified to a stage where the dismissal of a suit on
merits is a more appropriate course of action instead of rejecting a
plaint at the outset which should have been done at a preliminary
stage.
15. It is already a clarified position of law that without disposing of an
application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, the court cannot proceed
with the trial. When this is the position of law and the purpose of the
provision is also settled, then, we see no reason for the right of the
defendant to raise such a plea at a far belated stage such as final
arguments or nearing conclusion of the trial. Allowing such pleas to
be raised after the trial has proceeded so far would not only defeat
the intent of the provision but would also go against the principle of
equity and would lead to wastage of the court resources. Additionally,
allowing such rights to survive till eternity only act as a catalyst for
the defendant to misuse the provision to prolong or delay the trial
and abuse the process of law.
16. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the present case,
and in particular, having noticed the conduct of the defendant-
respondents as recorded by the Trial Court and also the fact that full
trial had already been concluded as both the parties had already
closed their evidence and the matter was ripe for final arguments,
consideration of the application under Order VII Rule 11 was rightly
declined by the Trial Court. The High Court erred in allowing the same
and rejecting the plaint.”
(Emphasis supplied)
7.2 Accordingly to my view, such type of application filed at
such a belated stage of trial of the suit requires to be rejected
with the costs, otherwise for any reason, defendant may
Page 7 of 9
Uploaded by DEEPAK GEHLOT(HC02361) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 18:48:51 IST 2026

C/CRA/441/2026 (GJHC240611602026) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
engage the trial court in adjudication of such application,
thereby he would not allow the trial court to adjudicate the lis
on merits.
8. Even the impugned order did not remotely suggest that
trial court has accepted the submission of the petitioner that
suit is time barred, rather while assigning reasons, the
submission of petitioner-defendant no.8 was recorded that as
per oral evidence of plaintiff (cross-examination), the suit is
time barred. The aforesaid was not an observation or finding
recorded by the trial court in the impugned order. Rather, the
trial court has correctly observed that issue of limitation is
already framed and it requires to be decided along with the
other issues.
9. Thus, having considered the ratio of the decision supra,
the facts of the case at hand is more or less similar wherein
also the impugned application was filed at the fag end of trial.
It is undisputed that by now, the suit is reached to the stage of
final arguments, and in such factual background of the case at
hand, the trial court has not committed any jurisdictional error
by dismissing the impugned application.
10. Even though this Court is not inclined to entertain the
Page 8 of 9
Uploaded by DEEPAK GEHLOT(HC02361) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 18:48:51 IST 2026

C/CRA/441/2026 (GJHC240611602026) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
impugned application by not entertaining this revision
application, nonetheless, the trial court is required to decide
the lis between the parties without being influenced by any of
the aforesaid observations made by this Court.
11. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the present case and for the reasons supra, the impugned
application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC was correctly
not entertained by the trial court; rather, it was to be
dismissed with costs. Thus, having not found any jurisdictional
error committed by the trial court while passing impugned
order, the present revision application is dismissed with costs
of Rs. 10,000/-.
12. The petitioner-defendant no.8 is hereby directed to
deposit cost of Rs. 10,000/ with DLSA, Valsad, within one
month from the date of the receipt of copy of this order. The
trial court shall see the compliance of this order by petitioner.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J)
DEEPAK GEHLOT
Page 9 of 9
Uploaded by DEEPAK GEHLOT(HC02361) on Thu Sep 03 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 03 18:48:51 IST 2026