Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CRA/1381/1998 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 1381 of 1998
With
CIVIL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 1382 of 1998
=========================================================
JAGDISH
MOTILAL DABHI - Applicant(s)
Versus
KUBERBHAI
PARSHOTTAMBHAI SOLANKI - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
YATIN SONI for
Applicant(s) : 1, 1.2.1,1.2.2
MR PRAKASH K JANI for Opponent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
Date
: 14/12/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
learned advocate Ms. Marya Dalal for learned advocate Mr. Yatin Soni
appearing on behalf of petitioners and learned advocate Mr. Pravin
Panchal for learned advocate Mr. P.K. Jani appearing on behalf of
respondent.
This
Civil Revision Application is filed by landlord. The HRP Suit filed
by landlord has been decided in favour of landlord and at that
occasion, defendant – tenant remained absent and case has been
considered by trial Court under Section 12(3)(b). Subsequently,
appeal was preferred by tenant, which was allowed.
Today,
learned advocate Ms. Dalal submitted that on the basis of decree
passed in favour of landlord, possession of the suit premises was
taken by landlord from original tenant – respondent and
thereafter, that suit premises has already been handed over to some
other person on 30th September 1997 by landlord as a
tenant.
Learned
advocate Ms. Dalal submitted that after receiving possession from
tenant in pursuance of judgment and decree passed by trial Court,
tenant has not filed any proceedings for restoration of possession
before trial Court. Not only that but landlord has given this suit
premises to other tenant. Therefore, she submitted that judgment and
decree passed by appellate Court in favour of tenant now does not
survive, because, tenant has not initiated any proceedings till date
for restoration of possession of suit premises.
In
light of this background and considering subsequent development as
well as considering submissions made by learned Ms. Dalal, present
both Civil Revision Applications are not required to be examined on
merits, therefore, both CRAs are disposed of accordingly.
Today,
this Court has disposed of both CRAs on the basis of subsequent
development pointed out by learned advocates Ms. Dalal appearing on
behalf of petitioner, however, in case, if, in future, subsequently,
tenant will initiate any proceedings against present petitioner –
landlord for restoration of possession of suit premises, then, it is
open for petitioner to revive both CRSs by filing merely a note
before registry of this Court.
In
view of this, interim relief granted earlier shall stand vacated
subject to aforesaid liberty given to petitioner.
[H.K.
RATHOD, J.]
#Dave
Top