Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/2472/2006 1 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2472 of 2006
=========================================================
ABDUL.M.LUCKYWALA
- Petitioner(s)
Versus
YUSUF
GHELABHAI SODAGAR - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
DIPEN C SHAH for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 28/09/2010
ORAL ORDER
Present
petition is directed against order dated 25.08.2005 passed by the
learned trial Court in Misc. Civil Appeal No.105 of 2003, which arose
from the order dated 08.05.2003 passed by the learned trial Court
below Exh.5 and Exh.15 in Regular Civil Suit No.125 of 2002.
The
petitioner is the original defendant in the aforesaid Regular Civil
Suit filed by the present respondent.
By
the order dated 08.05.2003, the learned trial Court directed both the
parties to maintain status-quo as per the panchnama prepared
by the Court Commissioner. By an application (Exh.15), the original
defendant had prayed that the disputed wall may be demolished. While
passing the impugned order, the learned trial Court disallowed the
said application and instead directed both the parties to maintain
status-quo, which would include disputed wall as well.
The
said interim order was taken in appeal before the learned first
appellate Court.
By
the order passed by the learned first appellate Court, the appeal
against the said order has been dismissed and the learned trial
Court’s order has been confirmed.
Against
the said two concurrent orders, present petition is preferred.
Since
2006, the petition is pending at notice stage i.e. since 03.04.2006
when the Court had issued notice. Thereafter, the petition has
remained pending at the same stage.
Neither
the petition is admitted nor even any ad-interim relief is granted.
Thus,
the impugned order has remained in operation since May 2003.
Hence,
there is no cause or justification to interfere with the impugned
order after almost 7 years more particularly when both the parties to
the suit are directed to maintain status-quo.
Even
otherwise, any apparent arbitrariness or illegality has not been
pointed out by the petitioner.
Furthermore,
petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against 2
concurrent orders and that too interlocutory order does not deserve
to be entertained.
The
learned advocate for the petitioner has in the alternative submitted
that the learned trial Court may be directed to dispose of the suit
at an early date since the disputed wall is causing disturbances to
the petitioner.
In
view of the fact that the impugned order has remained in operation
since last 7 years and any apparent arbitrariness or illegality is
not pointed out, the petition does not deserve to be entertained. The
petition, therefore, fails and is, hereby, rejected.
Having
regard to the fact that the suit appears to be pending since 2002, it
is hoped that the learned trial Court, subject to the load on its
roster, make endeavor to complete the suit proceedings as
expeditiously as possible.
With
the aforesaid clarification, the petition stands disposed of. Notice
discharged.
[K.M.Thaker,
J.]
kdc
Top