Court Restores Suit Challenging Multiple Sale Deeds, Holds Plaintiff’s Mixed-Fact Plea Not Suitable for Rejection Under Order VII Rule 11

A bench comprising Honourable Mr. Justice Devan M. Desai heard the first appeal against the order of the trial court which had allowed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) and rejected the plaint in Special Civil Suit No.47 of 2016. The appeal concerned whether the plaint was barred by limitation and whether the trial court erred in rejecting the plaint at the threshold without trial when plaintiffs sought cancellation of multiple sale deeds and possession.

The High Court allowed the first appeal, restored Regular Civil Suit No.47 of 2016 to the file and directed expeditious disposal by the trial court within one year. The Court emphasised the limited scope of Order VII Rule 11(d) and that questions of fact and mixed questions of law and fact were not to be adjudicated at the initial stage of plaint rejection. The Court noted that, when deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11(d), “only the averments made in the plaint, and the documents in support of the plaint are to be considered. No defence of defendant nor documents in support of the defence can be considered.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “When plaintiffs have prayed for more than one prayers in the plaint and if one of the prayers is barred by any provisions of law but for the remaining prayers the suit requires evidence to be recorded, the plaint cannot be rejected in piecemeal. Therefore, the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code cannot be invoked and the Court cannot reject the entire plaint at the threshold. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs sought for, in the plaint or the suit is maintainable or not, is outside the scope of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. The question involved in the suit, considering the averments made in the plaint are mixed questions of law and facts. The question of applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, in the present set of facts, remains academic, and therefore, I am not delving into it.”

Background
The plaintiffs claimed title and possession to a sub-plot (Plot No.6/B) purchased by registered sale deed dated 24.10.1997. It was alleged that Defendant No.1 later executed a separate registered sale deed in favour of Defendant No.2 on 30.06.1999 and that the Gujarat State Financial Corporation (Defendant No.4) had, on account of a mortgage and purported auction, transferred the property to Defendant No.3 (sale dated 27.01.2014), and that further transactions to Defendants Nos.5 and 6 followed. Plaintiffs first instituted Regular Civil Suit No.159 of 2010 challenging the 1999 transaction and pursued the matter; during pendency they withdrew that suit on 22.03.2016 with liberty to file a fresh suit and then filed the present suit on 13.05.2016 seeking declaration of illegality of the 1999 and 2014 sale deeds, possession, and permanent injunction.

Defendants Nos.3, 5 and 6 moved for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) contending the challenge to the 1999 sale deed was time-barred and that the fresh suit was barred by limitation despite the earlier suit and the grant of liberty to file a fresh suit. The trial court accepted the submission and rejected the plaint on 05.09.2017. On appeal, the High Court reviewed settled principles that at the stage of Order VII Rule 11(d) only the plaint and documents relied upon by the plaintiff could be considered and the Court could not decide disputed questions of fact or entertain the defendant’s evidence. The High Court found that plaintiffs had sought multiple reliefs, including possession, and that factual issues—such as who was in possession at relevant dates and whether the auction transfer was in fact effective—required trial. The Court therefore held that rejection in limine was not justified, restored the suit to the original file and directed the trial court to conclude the suit preferably within one year, while admonishing parties to cooperate, adhere to Order XVI Rule 1 and avoid unnecessary adjournments.

Case Details:
Case No.: R/First Appeal No. 4159 of 2017 (C/FA/4159/2017)
NeutralCitation: 2026:GUJHC:17352
Case Title: Javahar Ashanand Bhatiya & Anr. Versus Anurup Babulal Sheth & Ors.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr H.S. Tolia (assisting), Mr Y.J. Patel (Advocate for Appellants No.1 & 2)
For the Respondent(s): Mr A.S. Athavadi (for Defendant No.4), Mr Nishit P. Gandhi (for Defendant No.3), Mr P.P. Majmudar (for Defendant Nos.5 & 6)

Source: 2026 CaseBase(GUJ) 73