Gujarat High Court
Civil Procedure and EvidenceCivil Law

By joint request, the appellate decree was set aside and the appeal remanded for fresh adjudication.

GAJARABA BHIKHUBHA VADHER vs SUMARA UMAR AMAD(DECD) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS

Gujarat High CourtJUDGMENT: September 30, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
By joint request, the appellate decree was set aside and the appeal remanded for fresh adjudication.. GAJARABA BHIKHUBHA VADHER vs SUMARA UMAR AMAD(DECD) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS. Gujarat High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The appellants, who were not parties to the original suit or the first appeal, obtained leave to bring this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Source reference: para. 2

They challenged the judgment allowing Regular Civil Appeal No. 130 of 2005 and setting aside the trial court’s decree in Special Civil Suit No. 77 of 1974.

Source reference: para. 3

Following remand by the Supreme Court, counsel for both sides jointly asked the High Court to set aside the first appellate judgment and remand the appeal for rehearing, including consideration of subsequent developments, evidence, and the predecessor of the appellants’ cross-objection.

Source reference: paras. 1, 4–5
02

Issues

Whether the first appellate judgment and decree should be set aside and Regular Civil Appeal No. 130 of 2005, together with the cross-objection, remanded for fresh adjudication on the parties’ joint request.

Source reference: paras. 4–6

Whether the appellants should be joined as co-respondents in the restored appeal and afforded an opportunity to participate and submit evidence.

Source reference: paras. 6.2–6.3
03

Law Applied

The appeal was brought under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Source reference: para. 2

The Court accepted the parties’ joint request, directed the first appellate court to consider the Supreme Court’s observations in its order dated 14 January 2020, and left all parties’ rights and contentions open for determination according to law.

Source reference: paras. 6, 6.4, 6.7
04

Reasoning

The Court did not decide the merits of the second appeal or the underlying dispute.

Source reference: paras. 4–6

Because both sides agreed that the first appellate judgment should be set aside and the appeal reheard in light of subsequent developments, the Court accepted their joint request and ordered a remand.

Source reference: paras. 4–6

To facilitate effective adjudication, it directed restoration of the appeal and cross-objection, joinder of the present appellants as co-respondents, notice to unrepresented parties, and a reasonable opportunity for all parties to be heard and submit evidence.

Source reference: paras. 6.1–6.5

The first appellate court was also directed to consider the Supreme Court’s observations and frame points for determination.

Source reference: paras. 6.1–6.5
05

Holding

The second appeal was partly allowed.

The first appellate judgment and decree dated 7 November 2012 and 3 December 2012 were set aside, and Regular Civil Appeal No. 130 of 2005 and the cross-objection were restored for fresh hearing.

Source reference: paras. 6–7

The first appellate court was directed to decide them as early as possible, preferably by 30 June 2027; all rights and contentions were kept open, and no order as to costs was made.

Source reference: paras. 6–7
06

Acts & Sections Cited

1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Code of Civil Procedure, 19081

Gujarat High Court

Original Court PDF

GAJARABA BHIKHUBHA VADHERvsSUMARA UMAR AMAD(DECD) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS

Gujarat High Court · September 30, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment