Heirs’ 31-Year-Old Challenge to 1971 Land Sale Still Nascent; Gujarat HC Refuses Injunction Against Eviction Decree

The petitioners challenged the rejection of their Exh. 5 application for injunction in Regular Civil Appeal No. 73 of 2025, arising from a decree dated 29 April 2025 in favour of respondent No. 1

They claimed ownership and occupation of the disputed land, relying on a family title history and a pending Civil Suit No. 188 of 1995 challenging the 1971 sale deed in favour of respondent No. 1

The petitioners argued that the trial court had relied on the Supreme Court’s order dated 10 December 2024, but that the Supreme Court subsequently clarified, on 20 July 2026, that a civil suit filed by the applicants was to be decided on its own merits, uninfluenced by that order

Respondent No. 1 contended that the clarification concerned only the petitioners’ separate civil suit and did not affect the appeal in which the injunction was sought

Article 227 of the Constitution permits supervisory interference where circumstances warrant it; the Court found no egregious error or other circumstance justifying such intervention in this case.

The Supreme Court’s order dated 20 July 2026 directed that the civil suit, if any, filed by its applicants be decided on its own merits, without influence from the Supreme Court’s judgment dated 10 December 2024; the High Court construed that clarification according to its terms and confined it to that suit.

The grant of injunction is discretionary, and the Court considered the petitioners’ conduct and the advanced stage of execution in deciding whether to grant relief.

The Court held that the 20 July 2026 clarification applied to the petitioners’ separate civil suit and did not extend to the present appeal, which arose from the suit brought by defendant No. 7.

It therefore did not alter the basis for rejecting the injunction application.

Independently, the petitioners had not obtained a resolution of their challenge to the 1971 sale deed despite the long pendency of their 1995 suit, which remained at a preliminary stage after restoration; meanwhile, execution of the decree was at a final stage.

In the absence of an egregious error warranting supervisory intervention, the Court declined discretionary relief.

The petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.