Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/420/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 420 of 2010
=========================================
MANHARLAL
RATILAL BACHKANIWALA & 5 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
KESHUBHAI
MOHANBHAI PATEL & 6 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
DC DAVE for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 6.
MR MEHUL SHARAD SHAH for Respondent(s) :
1,
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 2 -
7.
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 03/02/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. By
way of this petition, the petitioners have challenged judgement and
order dated 02.12.2009 passed in Special Civil Suit No. 263 of 2003
by 7th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat, below Exh.
1250, whereby the application was rejected.
2. Brief
facts of the case are that, the petitioners-original plaintiffs
instituted Special Civil Suit No. 263 of 2003 in the Court of Civil
Judge (S.D.) Surat, inter alia, seeking a declaration to the effect
that sale deed dated 22.01.2003 claimed to have been executed in
favour of respondent No. 1 are ab initio void and thereupon
respondent No. 1 would not derive any right, title and interest in
respect of the concerned properties. The petitioners moved an
application at Exh. 1250 under Order 7 Rule 4(3) read with Section
151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking permission of the
trial court to produce on record the concerned documentary evidence
referred to therein. However, present respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have
submitted their replies inter alia opposing the said application. The
learned 7th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat, vide
order dated 02.12.2009 rejected the application of the petitioners.
Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have approached this
Court for quashing and setting aside the said impugned order. Hence,
this petition.
3. The
trial court has considered the entire evidence on record in para 5 of
the order. It is found that the documents in question were not
produced earlier and it cannot be produced without permission of the
court. In my view, the view taken by the trial court is just and
proper.
4. However,
in view of the subsequent amendment, in the application, item No. 30,
the chip is required to be produced. If an application is preferred
separately and keeping in view the fact that the amendment is
subsequent to the production of the photograph, the trial court is
directed to reconsider the same in accordance with law without being
influenced by the order below Exh. 1250. It will be open for the
petitioner to produce recent photograph to be taken by an independent
agency in an application before the trial court which will be
considered in accordance with law.
With
the above observations, the petition is disposed of. Notice is
discharged with no order as to costs.
[K.S.JHAVERI,
J.]
JYOTI
Top