Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/19849/2005 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 19849 of 2005
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=========================================================
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 ?
=========================================================
VITTHALBHAI
FULABHAI BARAIYA & 2 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
SHANTABEN
WD/O.ISHWARBHAI HASMUKHBHAI & 7 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
AR MAJMUDAR for Petitioner(s) : 1 3.
MR SD SUTHAR for MR NK MAJMUDAR for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 3.
MS SONAL D VYAS for Respondent(s) : 1 - 4,6
- 7.
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 5, 8,
MR JK SHAH
AGP for Respondent(s) :
8,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date : 22/01/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. By
way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed to quash and set
aside the judgment and order dated 18.07.2005 passed in Misc. Civil
Appeal No. 119 of 1998 below Exhibits 186 and 193 by the learned 4th
Fast Track Court, at Surat, whereby the learned trial Judge rejected
the application seeking permission for production of certain
documents on record of the case.
2. The
short facts of the case are that the petitioners and one Kantibhai
Somabhai Tailor (since deceased) had approached the Charity
Commissioner and had prayed for certain reliefs under the provisions
of Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, as the petitioners had the
grievance that one Kshetrapal Hanumanji Mandir, Surat was not
maintaining the accounts of the Trust properly and that certain
irregularities had been committed in the maintenance of the
accounts. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred application
presenting scheme before the concerned authority. The petitioners
had also preferred an application for carrying out detailed inquiry
into the alleged irregularities committed in the accounts and for the
appointment of a Commissioner for taking accounts of the income of
the temple in question. However, the said application was rejected.
2.1. Thereafter,
the petitioner preferred an appeal being Misc. Civil Appeal No. 119
of 1998 under the provisions of Section 72(1) of the Bombay Public
Trusts Act, before the learned 4th Fast Track Court,
Surat. During the pendency of the said appeal, the petitioners came
into possession of certain important documents in respect of certain
alleged irregularities committed by the respondents in maintaining
the accounts.
2.2. Pursuant
thereto, the petitioners preferred applications in this regard, below
Exhibits 186 and 193, in the said appeal seeking permission for
production of the said documents on record of the case. However, the
learned trial Judge, vide order dated 18.07.2005, rejected the said
applications. Hence, this petition.
3. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents
on record. On perusal of the documents on record it transpires that
the documents in question were not relevant to the facts of the case
before the trial Court inasmuch as the petitioners were not
able to explain as to why they were not able to produce the said
documents at an earlier point of time, particularly when the appeal
is of the year 1998.
4. In
view of the above, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the
said documents were not relevant to the facts of the case and
consequently, rejected the applications. I am in complete agreement
with the reasonings given by the Court below while rejecting the
application of the petitioners and hence I find no reason to
interfere with the same under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
5. In
the result, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim
relief, if any, stands vacated.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.]
/phalguni/
Top