SAHARBHAI LALLUBHAI RABARI Vs. THAKORE NARANJI SAVADHANJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Captioned appeal is directed against the judgment dtd. 17/4/2025 passed by the learned Chief Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar in Special Civil Suit no. 12 of 2025 (hereinafter referred to as "the suit in question") whereby, application Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") filed by the defendant no.8 has been allowed and the plaint has been rejected. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their original status in the suit.

(2.) The brief facts are stated thus: The plaintiff claims that agreement to sell dtd. 10/2/2010 came to be executed with respect to land bearing old revenue survey no.76 and new revenue survey no.110 admeasuring 83,533 sq. mtrs. situated at village Nasmed, taluka Kalol (hereinafter referred as "the land in question") in his favour by the defendant no.1 with a duration of twelve months with a further condition of obtaining title clearance certificate and non-agricultural permission which obligation, was on the defendant no.1. The automatic extension was contained in the said condition. The defendant has recently obtained the NA permission. Disregarding the agreement to sell, sale deeds have been executed in the years 2010, 2023 and lastly in the year 2024 in favour of respective defendants. Being aggrieved that the suit has been filed. The plaint has been rejected apropos the application Exh.14 filed by the defendant no.8, inter alia, on the ground of it being barred by limitation. Hence the captioned appeal.

(3.) Mr Kunjal Pandya, learned advocate appearing for the plaintiff while inviting the attention of this Court to the prayers in the plaint submitted that over and above the prayer seeking specific performance, the plaintiff has also claimed damages and compensation, coupled with further prayers of challenge to the sale deed of the year 2010 in favour of defendant nos.3 to 6 and thereafter, sale deed of the year 2023 by the defendant nos.3 to 6 in favour of defendant no.8 who, in turn has executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant no.9. When there are multiple prayers, the learned Judge, was not right in rejecting the plaint. Moreover, the plaintiff has also prayed for relief of permanent injunction and hence, the plaint ought not to have been rejected.