Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CA/11575/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 11575 of 2010
In
FIRST
APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) No. 3167 of 2010
=========================================
SULOCHNABEN
KRUSHNALAL PAREKH - Petitioner(s)
Versus
DAKSHABEN
W/O HARSHADRAY PRABHUDAS MEHTA & 6 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
MANOJ N POPAT for Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR HEMANT S SHAH for
Respondent(s) : 1 - 2.
None for Respondent(s) : 3, 6,
RULE
SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3,3.3.4 - 6,6.3.2
- 7.
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
Date
: 29/09/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. Shri Hemant S.Shah, learned advocate appearing for the respondents
No.1 and 2 has submitted that, in fact, the three rooms in the suit
premises have already been in possession of the present respondent
Nos.1 and 2 as on 18.9.2010 itself. By the process of Court, bailiff
had taken the possession and handed over the keys to the respondents
No.1 and 2. The premises was found locked on 27. 9. 2010 and request
was made on behalf of the applicant before the Executing Court that
the lady is hospitalized.
2. It appears that there seems to be a sharp practice adopted by the
learned advocate for the applicant and this needs to be viewed in
proper perspective in view of the report, which is placed on record
by the Registry that through inadvertence and typographical error,
though the caveat was received by the office, the name of the
caveator’s advocate had not been shown and the order was passed on
27.9.2010. The factum with regard to filing of caveat had not been
brought to the notice of the Court.
3. As against
this, Shri Manoj N.Popat, who appears for the applicant, states that
he needs some time to file appropriate reply to deal with the
contentions. He submitted that the possession of three rooms on the
first floor, which is shown to have been taken over by the applicant,
would naturally not be interfered with and undertaking to that effect
will be filed in this Court. Status quo order, therefore, is required
to be construed properly. The three rooms, whereon the locks have
been applied, will remain locked. The present applicant and/or any
one through her will not be permitted to use those rooms nor would
they do anything whereby the possession, as mentioned in the report
of the bailiff on 18.9.2010, may get disturbed. The keys of those
locks are handed over to the respondents No.1 and 2 and it shall
remain in the same way without any further disturbance.
4. At this
stage, Shri Manoj N. Popat, learned advocate for the applicant, makes
request for returning the movable goods. Shri Popat’s client will be
at the liberty to move the Execution Court for appropriate orders, if
so required.
5. At the
request of learned advocate Shri Popat and learned advocate Shri
Gupta, who appears for respondent No.61/B herein in these proceedings
and who supports the applicant, seeks time. Time, as sought for, is
granted. Matter is kept on 5.10.2010. The status quo, as ordered,
shall remain in force except with regard to the three rooms, wherein
the clarification is made hereinabove. Now, as there is status quo
qua the premises no further development of any sort will be made at
the behest of the applicant. The three rooms, which are in lock,
will remain in lock and the goods will be lying with the present
respondents No.1 and 2. S.O to 5.10.2010.
(S.R.
Brahmbhatt, J.)
sudhir
Top