Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/425/2010 2/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 425 of 2010
=========================================================
VAJIBEN
KAVABHAI GOLTAR - Petitioner(s)
Versus
SANJAYBHAI
MANSUKHLAL RAJANI THROUGH HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY & 3 -
Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MEHUL S SHAH for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
4.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HON'BLE
SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
Date
: 20/01/2010
ORAL ORDER
Mr.Mehul
S.Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
impugned order is erroneous, inasmuch as the Court has allowed the
application for amendment at Exh.84, whereby the valuation of the
property has suddenly been changed from Rs.95,000/-, as mentioned in
the plaint, to Rs.4,00,000/-. It is further submitted that in support
of the plaint, to the effect the respondent has filed an affidavit
regarding the submissions contained in paragraph-7 of the plaint,
that the valuation of the suit property is Rs.95,000/-, whereas the
application at Exh.84 has not been filed upon verification or even an
affidavit, as required by the amended provisions of Code of Civil
Procedure. Besides, no documentary evidence has been produced. It is
emphatically urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
High Court, by order dated 18.04.2009, passed in Special Civil
Application no.952/2009, has directed that the Regular Civil Suit
No.140/2008, shall be decided by the Trial Court expeditiously,
preferably within one year from the date of the receipt of the order.
The respondent has moved the application at Exh.84, after about six
months from the date of passing of this order, with a view to change,
the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court, as passing of the impugned
order would result in transfer of the suit, which is the main purpose
behind filing the application for amendment. It is contended by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, that the impugned order has been
passed without proper appreciation of the legal and factual position
and, as the same is erroneous, it deserves to be stayed.
Issue
Notice, returnable on 24.02.2010. The operation, implementation and
execution of the impugned order dated 14.10.2009, passed by the
Learned Principal Civil Judge, Vankaner below Exh.84 in Regular Civil
Suit No.140/2008, shall remain stayed, till then.
(Smt.
Abhilasha Kumari, J.)
~gaurav~
Top