Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
AO/68/2010 1/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
APPEAL
FROM ORDER No. 68 of 2010
=====================================
VALLABHBHAI
NATHABHAI PATEL - Appellant(s)
Versus
SHANTABEN
NARSIBHAI - Respondent(s)
=====================================
Appearance
:
MR MEHUL S SHAH for
Appellant(s) : 1,MR SURESH M SHAH for Appellant(s) : 1,
None for
Respondent(s) : 1,
MR ANSHIN H DESAI for Respondent(s) : 1.2.1,
1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4,1.2.5
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) :
1.2.6,1.2.7
=====================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 26/03/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. Present
Appeal from Order is filed being aggrieved by order passed below exh.
5 in Special Civil Suit No. 102 of 2009. The learned Judge refused
to grant any interim relief during the pendency of suit only on the
ground which is set out in Para 12 of the order, which is reproduced
in order dated 5th March 2010, passed by this Court while
admitting this Appeal from Order. Para 12 reads as under:
(12).
On perusal of prayer, it seems that plaintiff has filed this suit
for specific performance of contract dtd 22-12-95. He has not prayed
for any perpetual, permanent injunction restraining the defendants
from transferring or alienating
the suit property and therefore, settled principles of law is that in
absence of prayer for perpetual injunction in the suit no interim
relief can be granted in application in Ex-5 i.e., interim injunction
application, when no decree for permanent injunction is sought for by
plaintiff, then no interim injunction can be granted in that very
suit .
2. The
fact that the plaintiff appellant herein has approached the Court
with a prayer for specific performance of a contract, there was no
question of the suit being defective only on the ground that the
plaintiff has not prayed for perpetual injunction and refusal of
interim order during the pendency of suit on that ground required
interference at the hands of this Court and hence, Appeal from Order
was admitted. This Court, at the time of passing order of admission
in Appeal from Order, issued notice and notice as to interim relief
and granted ad-interim relief in terms of Para 5(a) of the Civil
Application. Para 5(a) reads as under:
5(a). Pending
hearing and final disposal of this appeal, the Respondents may kindly
be directed to maintain Status quo as regards the suit property.
3. Today,
when the matter is taken up for confirmation of
ad-interim relief
granted in Civil Application, the learned Advocates for both the
sides requested the Court that if the Appeal from Order can be heard
and in turn, if the Special Civil Suit can be ordered to be heard in
a time frame, that will be in the interest of justice.
4. Taking
into consideration the substance in the request made by the learned
Advocates for the respective parties, the Appeal from Order is taken
up for final hearing.
5. This
Court is of the considered opinion that the interest of justice will
be best served if the parties are directed to maintain status quo qua
the suit property and the suit is directed to be heard as
expeditiously as possible. Hence, following order:
i) The
Court below is directed to give due preference to the Special Civil
Suit No. 102 of 2009 and decide the same as expeditiously as
possible, preferably within 06 (six) months from the date of receipt
of this order.
ii) In
the meantime, the parties are directed to maintain status quo qua the
suit property.
6. With
these directions, present Appeal from Order is disposed of. It goes
without saying that admission of Appeal from Order and disposal of
the same with the aforesaid directions will not influence the learned
Judge while deciding the Special Civil Suit on merits and in
accordance with law.
[
Ravi R. Tripathi, J. ]
hiren
Top