Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
AO/111/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
APPEAL
FROM ORDER No. 111 of 2011
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 3912 of 2011
In
APPEAL
FROM ORDER No. 111 of 2011
=========================================================
RAVAL
RITABEN DEEPAKKUMAR - Appellant(s)
Versus
DILIPBHAI
MANORDAS PARIKH (PAARI) & 13 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
KV SHELAT for Appellant(s) : 1,
MR MB GANDHI for Respondent(s) : 1
- 13, 13.2.1, 13.2.2, 13.2.3, 13.2.4, 13.2.5,13.2.6 - 14,14.2.1
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date : 20/04/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. By
way of this appeal, the appellant has prayed to quash and set aside
the impugned order dated 08.02.2011 passed by the learned 9th
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) below application
Exhibit-5 filed in Special Civil Suit No. 672/2010, whereby the
parties were directed to maintain status-quo qua the suit property.
2. The
facts in brief are that the suit property situated at Village Ranpur,
Taluka Ranpur, Sub-District Dhandhuka, District Ahmedabad bearing
Survey No. 33 + 37/1+ 2 and Survey No. 34 + 25 admeasuring 51, 598
sq. mtrs wherein the predecessor in title was one Sumantlal
Narottamdas Kapadia. The said property was jointly purchased by the
original plaintiffs and original defendants nos. 1 , 3 and 4. Since
the said property was agricultural land, NA permission was applied
for and the competent authority in the month of July, 2009 granted
the NA permission. Thereafter, on oral agreement the said land was
divided amongst the original plaintiffs and original defendants nos.
1, 3 & 4. Original defendants no. 1 sold 1/5th of his
share to the appellant vide registered sale deed dated 02.08.2010.
On the said plot, the appellant constructed fence and office premises
as per the building regulations. The respondents-original plaintiffs
preferred suit being Special Civil Suit No. 672 of 2010 against the
appellant and original defendants nos. 1, 3 & 4 praying
prohibitory injunction qua the suit property. In the said suit the
respondents-original plaintiffs preferred application Exhibit-5. The
trial Court vide order dated 08.02.2011 directed the parties to
maintain status-quo qua the suit property. Hence, this appeal.
3. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents
on record. After appreciating the evidence on record, the Court below
found that the property in question was undivided property. Learned
counsel for the appellant was not able to point out from the record
that the said finding recorded by the Court below is erroneous. In
view of the above, the Court below has rightly not granted interim
injunction. I am in complete agreement with the finding recorded by
the Court below in the impugned order and hence, find no reasons to
entertain this appeal.
4. It
is however, observed that if an application is preferred by the
appellant requesting the Court below to dispose of the suit
expeditiously, the trial Court concerned shall consider the same and
shall try to dispose of the suit being Special Civil Suit No.672/2010
as expeditiously as possible. It is clarified that while deciding the
suit in question, the Court below shall not be influenced by the
observations made by it in the impugned order dated 08.02.2011 passed
below application Exhibit-5 and shall decide the suit independently
on its own merits.
5. With
the above observations, the appeal as well as civil application stand
disposed of. No order as to costs.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.]
/phalguni/
Top