Gujarat High Court Allows Appeal in Tenancy Dispute, Remands Suit for Fresh Consideration Due to Procedural Irregularities. Trial Court's Failure to Consider Evidence and Frame Issues Vitiated the Judgment Under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

High Court: Gujarat High Court In Favour of Accused

Admin

2026-05-18 22:44:45

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The case involves a first appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and decree dated 07.04.2024 passed by the learned City Civil Court at Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No.344 of 1996. The appellant, Kalpanaben Vineshkumar Shah, is the legal heir of the original plaintiff, Shantaben Chandulal Shah, who was the widow of late Chandulal Shah. The suit property is a tenement situated on Naroda-Dehgam Highway, Village Naroda, Taluka Ahmedabad, District Ahmedabad, bearing Municipal Census No.520, Old Tenement No. V-211-0261-00-0101-T and present Tenement No. 0230-05-0291-0001-C. Late Chandulal Shah was the original tenant of the suit property, having been allotted the same in the year 1967 on a monthly rent of ₹3/-. After his demise, his heirs, including Shantaben, filed a suit seeking a declaration of tenancy rights and a permanent injunction against the defendants, namely the State of Gujarat, the Deputy Executive Engineer, PWD Department, and the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. The plaint was subsequently amended due to the death of the original plaintiff and the power of attorney holder. The trial court dismissed the suit, leading to the present appeal. The High Court found that the trial court's judgment was cryptic and did not consider the evidence on record, including rent receipts and municipal records. The court also noted that the trial court failed to frame proper issues and did not provide reasons for its decision. Consequently, the High Court set aside the judgment and decree and remanded the suit back to the trial court for fresh consideration, directing the trial court to decide the suit afresh in accordance with law, after giving both parties an opportunity to lead evidence. The court also disposed of the connected civil applications.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Remand - Section 96, Order 41 Rule 23, Order 41 Rule 23A, Order 41 Rule 25 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The High Court set aside the trial court's judgment and remanded the suit for fresh decision, as the trial court failed to consider the evidence on record, did not frame proper issues, and passed a cryptic judgment without reasons. Held that the appellate court can remand the case when the lower court's judgment is not in accordance with law and the parties have not had a fair trial. (Paras 1-10)

B) Tenancy - Declaration and Permanent Injunction - Suit for declaration of tenancy rights and permanent injunction against eviction - The original plaintiff claimed to be a tenant of the suit property since 1967, but the trial court dismissed the suit without appreciating the documentary evidence, including rent receipts and municipal records. Held that the trial court's failure to consider evidence vitiates the judgment. (Paras 2-5)

C) Civil Procedure - Judgment - Requirement of Reasons - Section 96, Order 20 Rule 4 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The trial court's judgment was cryptic and did not contain any discussion of the evidence or reasons for dismissal. Held that a judgment must contain the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for the decision. (Paras 6-8)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the trial court's judgment and decree dated 07.04.2024 in Civil Suit No.344 of 1996 is sustainable in law, given that the court failed to consider the evidence on record and decided the suit without framing proper issues or giving reasons.

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree dated 07.04.2024 passed by the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No.344 of 1996, and remanded the suit back to the trial court for fresh decision in accordance with law. The trial court was directed to decide the suit afresh after giving both parties an opportunity to lead evidence. The connected civil applications were disposed of.

Law Points

Section 96 CPC
Order 41 Rule 23 CPC
Order 41 Rule 23A CPC
Order 41 Rule 25 CPC
remand
tenancy rights
declaration
permanent injunction
non-consideration of evidence
procedural irregularity

Case Details

2026 LawText (GUJ) (01) 427

R/First Appeal No. 3265 of 2021 with Civil Application (For Injunction) No. 1 of 2023 and Civil Application (For Vacating Stay) No. 1 of 2025

2026-01-29

M. K. Thakker

Mr. Manav A Mehta for the Appellant, Mr. Nandish Y Chudgar for Defendant No. 3

LH of Decd Shantaben Chandulal Shah since decd thru Kalpanaben Vineshkumar Shah D/o Late Chandulal

State of Gujarat & Ors.

Nature of Litigation

First appeal against judgment and decree in a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding tenancy rights.

Remedy Sought

The appellant sought to set aside the trial court's dismissal of the suit and to obtain a declaration of tenancy rights and permanent injunction against eviction.

Filing Reason

The trial court dismissed the suit without considering the evidence on record and without providing reasons.

Previous Decisions

The trial court (City Civil Court, Ahmedabad) dismissed Civil Suit No.344 of 1996 on 07.04.2024.

Issues

Whether the trial court's judgment and decree are sustainable when the court failed to consider the evidence on record and did not frame proper issues. Whether the trial court's judgment is vitiated for being cryptic and lacking reasons.

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued that the trial court did not appreciate the documentary evidence, including rent receipts and municipal records, and passed a judgment without reasons. The respondents argued that the trial court's judgment was correct and based on the evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellate court can remand a case under Order 41 Rule 23, 23A, or 25 of the CPC when the lower court's judgment is not in accordance with law, particularly when the trial court fails to consider evidence, frame issues, or provide reasons, thereby denying the parties a fair trial.

Judgment Excerpts

Challenging the judgment and decree dated 07.04.2024 passed by the learned City Civil Court at Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No.344 of 1996, the present appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The trial court's judgment is cryptic and does not contain any discussion of the evidence or reasons for dismissal.

Procedural History

The original plaintiff filed Civil Suit No.344 of 1996 in the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, seeking declaration and permanent injunction. The plaint was amended multiple times due to deaths of parties. The trial court dismissed the suit on 07.04.2024. The appellant filed First Appeal No.3265 of 2021 in the High Court of Gujarat, along with civil applications for injunction and vacating stay. The High Court heard the appeal and delivered judgment on 29.01.2026, allowing the appeal and remanding the suit.