Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/1393/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 1393 of 2010
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3775 of 2009
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 6417 of 2010
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 1393 of 2010
=========================================
BALUSINH
MOHANSINH ADIYAL DECEASED THROUGH HIS HEIRS & 1 - Appellant(s)
Versus
GITABEN
R DODIYA MINOR THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER & 2 -
Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
MTM HAKIM for the Appellants.
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
3.
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 15/07/2010
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA)
The
petitioners are the original plaintiffs who instituted Regular Civil
Suit No. 196 of 2006 for a declaration that they are owners and in
possession of the land bearing Revenue Survey Nos. 218, 326, 331, 457
admeasuring 0-33-39, 014-16, 0-63-74 and 0-01-01 Hectare, Are and Sq.
mtrs. respectively situated at village Amodar, Ta: Vaghodia, Dist:
Vadodara. In the said case, the trial court passed an interim order
of status quo which was vacated by the appellate court by judgment
and order dated 18th March, 2009 at the instance of the
defendants-respondents. Learned Single Judge having affirmed the
order passed by the appellate court, the present Appeal under Clause
15 of the Letters Patent has been preferred.
Learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that there
is another proceeding pending between the parties before Gujarat
Revenue Tribunal wherein the order of status quo was directed to be
maintained which the trial court, taking into consideration the
aforesaid facts, has passed the order of status quo and therefore, it
should not have been interfered with by the appellate court.
2. From
the judgment, we find that the learned Single Judge, on perusal of
the record gave the following findings.
(a)
There is no material on record to show that the petitioners are in
actual possession of the suit land.
(b)
The names of the petitioners do not find mention in the record of
rights. On the contrary, the name of the predecessor-in-interest of
the respondent is reflected in the revenue record since 1980 to
1981.
(c)
The trial court has not given any conclusive independent finding
of fact regarding possession of the petitioner.
Taking
into consideration the aforesaid fact and the fact that the State of
Gujarat has not been impleaded as party-defendant in the suit as
there are mutation entries in favour of the State, learned Single
Judge refused to interfere with the order passed by the appellate
court.
3. We
find no ground made out to interfere with the said order.
3. Learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that in the
pending matter, status quo order passed by the Gujarat Revenue
Tribunal is still in existence. The order passed by the Appellate
Court or Civil Court may affect the same. In this connection, we
may only mention that the order of Tribunal not being under challenge
either before this Court or before Civil Court, it cannot be stated
that the Court has expressed any opinion with regard to the order
passed by the Tribunal. There being no merit, the Appeal and Civil
Application both are dismissed. No costs.
(S.J.Mukhopadhaya,C.J.)
(K.M.Thaker,J)
***vcdarji
Top