ORDER : DEVAN M. DESAI, J. 1. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. A.S. Vakil with learned advocate Mr. Keyur Gandhi, learned advocate Mr. Isa Hakim and learned advocate Mr. Harshit Thanki for M/s. Gandhi Law Associates for the petitioners. Additional affidavit dated 22.01.2026 is placed on record, which is taken on record. 2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has contended that there is no legal and effective service of summons upon the petitioners. It is further contended that original defendant No.1-Prajapati Rasikbhai Gopalbhai had died in the year 2017 and the present petitioner No.1 being the daughter of the deceased defendant No.1 was not brought on record by the plaintiffs. It is further contended that the plaintiffs have prayed for setting aside the sale deed to the extent of the share of the plaintiffs. However, learned trial Court has committed a grave error by canceling the registered sale deed dated 31.03.1990 to the extent of plaintiffs’ undivided 50% share. It is further contended that considering the revenue entries, it appears that the suit property originally belonged to one Manilal Ranchhodbhai who died in the year 1972 and upon his death, names of heirs of deceased-Manilal Ranchhodbhai were mutated vide entry No.672 on 19.09.1975. As per said entry there were seven co-sharers of the land. Hence, at the most, plaintiffs can have an undivided less than 1/7 share in the suit property. It is further pointed out by learned Senior Counsel that the judgment and decree passed is an ex parte decree. 2.1. Regarding maintainability of present petition, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case Mafatlal Industries Limited Versus Gimatex Industries Limited & Anr. passed in R/Special Civil Application No.8707 of 2024 . It is submitted that a commercial suit came to be rejected by invoking the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 (f) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India while quashing and setting aside impugned decree, it is observed that manifest illegality is committed by Commercial Court and no substance was found in the submission of opposite side about alternative remedy available by filing First Appeal. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India while quashing and setting aside impugned decree, it is observed that manifest illegality is committed by Commercial Court and no substance was found in the submission of opposite side about alternative remedy available by filing First Appeal. In the present case, the impugned Judgment and Decree is illegal and requires to be set aside as it is passed ex-parte. 2.3. Further, learned Senior Counsel for petitioners has placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Prabin Ram Phukan & Anr. Versus State of Assam & Ors . reported in (2015) 3 SCC 605 . Para 24 and 25 have been relied upon. Same are reproduced as under:- “24. It is an admitted fact that there was no personal service of any notice effected on the appellants. It is on record that the process server said that he, therefore, displaced the notice in the office of Mauzadar. There is no evidence much less a conclusive one to prove that when the appellants could not be served personally then whether notices were served on any adult member of the appellants' family and, if so, what were the names of those adult members, what was their age, their relation with the appellants, whether they were living in the same house in which the appellants were residing. Whether notice was served in the presence of any witness residing in the area and who were those witnesses and why these details were not mentioned in the service report. In any case, in the absence of this material evidence, it was rightly held by the Board that no notice of either demand or/and sale of land was served on the appellants and the High Court ought not to have interfered with this finding of fact for holding otherwise. 25. In our considered opinion, there lies a distinction between non- service of notice and a notice though served but with some kind of procedural irregularities in serving. In the case of former category of cases, all consequential action, if taken would be rendered bad in law once the fact of non-service is proved whereas in the case of later category of cases, the consequential action, if taken would be sustained. In the case of former category of cases, all consequential action, if taken would be rendered bad in law once the fact of non-service is proved whereas in the case of later category of cases, the consequential action, if taken would be sustained. It is for the reason that in the case of former, since the notice was not served on the person concerned he was completely unaware of the proceedings which were held behind his back thereby rendering the action "illegal" whereas in the case of later, he was otherwise aware of the proceedings having received the notice though with procedural irregularity committed in making service of such notice on him. If a person has a knowledge of the action proposed in the notice, then the action taken thereon cannot be held as being bad in law by finding fault in the manner of effecting service unless he is able to show substantial prejudice caused to him due to procedural lapse in making service on him. It, however, depends upon individual case to case to find out the nature of procedural lapse complained of and the resultant prejudice caused. The case in hand falls in former category of case.” 2.4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has further placed reliance upon page No.71 of the compilation which is an extract of Village Form No.6. It is pointed out by learned Senior Counsel that on 07.01.2026 vide entry No.2796, Mamlatdar has mutated the entry of decree. It is further contended that within a period of 6 days from the passing of the judgment and decree. It is therefore, contended that petitioners have strong apprehension that respondents herein may change hands with regard to the suit property in question which would eventually affect important and valuable rights of appellants. It is further contended that petitioners are owners of the suit property by virtue of registered sale deed dated 31.03.1990. Therefore, stay of operation and implementation of impugned Judgment and Decree has been prayed for. 3. Considering the aforesaid facts, the implementation and operation of the impugned judgment and decree dated 31.12.2025 passed by learned 8 th Additional Civil Judge, Gandhinagar is stayed till the next date of hearing. 4. Regarding maintainability of the Special Civil Application challenging the impugned judgment and decree, issue Notice to respondents, making it returnable on 24.02.2026.