Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/318/2008 1/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 318 of 2008
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4129 of 2008
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 4135 of 2008
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 318 of 2008
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
PRAVINBHAI
HARILAL BHATT - Appellant(s)
Versus
HANSABEN
HARGOVIND PATEL C/O SWATIBEN PATEL & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
HIREN M MODI for
Appellant(s) : 1,
MR MEHUL S SHAH for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR RM
CHHAYA for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
Date
: 19/03/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT)
This
Appeal preferred under clause 15 of the Letters Patent arises from
the order dated 5th March 2008 made by the learned Single
Judge in above Special Civil Application No.4129/2008.
The
matter at dispute is the constructed property, possession of which
the appellant was directed to handover to the respondent no.1.
In
the Civil Revision Application No.965/2000, the appellant gave an
undertaking and agreed to handover the possession on or before 10th
November 2000. Till the date neither the order is implemented nor the
undertaking is respected. Instead, the appellant has filed Regular
Civil Suit No.278/2000 to retain the possession of the suit premises.
In the meanwhile, the construction in question was destroyed in the
earthquake on 26th January 2001. The appellant has not
handed over the possession either of the constructed property or the
open land.
In
view of the breach of the undertaking given by the appellant, by
order made by the trial Court below application Exh.38 under Order
39 Rule 2A CPC, the appellant is directed to undergo simple
imprisonment for three months. The challenge to the said order in the
above writ petition has failed. Hence, the present Appeal.
The
Appeal deserves to be dismissed on the grounds of maintainability and
also on merits. It is apparent that the appellant has not respected
the undertaking given by him to this Court.
No
case for interference is made out. The Appeal is dismissed. Civil
Application stands disposed of. Ad-interim relief, if any, stands
vacated.
(M.D.Shah,
J.) (Ms.R.M.Doshit, J.)
/moin
Top