LAWS(GJH)-2025-1-62

NAYANKUMAR BHAGVANBHAI PATEL MEVDA Vs. ASHOKBHAI CHHOTABHAI PATEL

Decided On January 16, 2025
Nayankumar Bhagvanbhai Patel Mevda Appellant
V/S
Ashokbhai Chhotabhai Patel Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Captioned civil application no.3285 of 2024 is for seeking leave to file appeal challenging the order as well as consent decree, both dtd. 11/2/2023 passed by the learned 26th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara in Special Civil Suit no.277 of 2022. Similarly, in civil application no.3288 of 2024, the applicant is seeking leave to file appeal to challenge the order dtd. 21/1/2023 passed below Exhibit 1 so also the decree of the same date by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara in Special Civil Suit no.11 of 2023. Since both the applications are connected, parties being common so also the issue, they are being disposed of by this common oral judgment. Parties have been referred to as per their status in civil application no.3285 of 2024.

(2.) Mr Archit P. Jani, learned advocate appearing for the applicant, submitted that the applicant has Agreement to Sell dtd. 17/3/2022 in his favour, executed by the respondents, except respondent no.10. It is submitted that Special Civil Suit no.277 of 2022 was filed by the respondents against the respondent no.10, seeking cancellation of the alleged Agreement to Sell executed on 1/1/2013, only with a view to nullifying the rights of the applicant. Another Special Civil Suit no.11 of 2022 was filed by the respondent no.10 seeking specific performance of the said Agreement to Sell dtd. 1/1/2013 against the rest of the respondents.

(3.) Per contra, Mr S. P. Majmudar, learned advocate appearing with Mr Hardik J. Karathiya, learned advocate for the respondent no.10, submitted that the application, suffers from vice of suppression of material fact inasmuch as, the applicant has chosen not to disclose the factum of filing of the suit by him seeking specific performance of the Agreement to Sell. Though reference is made of all other suit, the details of the suit filed by the applicant is missing and hence, the application deserves to be rejected only on the ground of suppression of material fact.