Gujarat High Court High Court

Kharva vs Ladhiben on 25 July, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Kharva vs Ladhiben on 25 July, 2011
Author: Harsha Devani,
  
 Gujarat High Court Case Information System 
    
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SA/158/2011	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SECOND
APPEAL No. 158 of 2011
 

WITH
 

SECOND
APPEAL NO. 159 OF 2011
 

 
=========================================


 

KHARVA
BABUBHAI MADHABHAI PARMAR - Appellant(s)
 

Versus
 

LADHIBEN
PUNJA & 2 - Defendant(s)
 

=========================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
MEHUL SHAH for MR HM PRACHCHHAK
for Appellant 
None for
Defendant(s) : 1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.2.5, 1.2.6,1.2.7 - 2,
2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.4, 2.2.5, 2.2.6, 2.2.7, 2.2.8,2.2.9 - 3,
3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.5, 3.2.6, 3.2.7,3.2.8
 
=========================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 25/07/2011 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

Heard
Mr. Mehul Shah, learned advocate for Mr. H. M. Prachchhak, learned
advocate for the appellants in both these appeals. Both the appeals
arise out of common judgement and decree passed by the learned
Additional District Judge, Porbandar and common questions are
involved in both the appeals.

Having
regard to the submissions made by the learned advocate for the
appellants, the matters require consideration. Hence, ADMIT.
The following substantial questions of law arise for determination
in both these appeals.

“[1] Whether
the judgement and decree passed by the
lower Appellate Court is vitiated by not framing the points for
determination as required under Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 ?

[2] Whether
the lower Appellate Court was justified in reversing the judgement
and decree passed by the Trial Court without considering and
recording any finding on the issue of non-joinder of necessary
parties as was considered by the Trial Court?

[3] Whether
the subsequent suit filed by the plaintiffs was barred by the
provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and
the proviso to section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963?

[4] Whether
the lower Appellate Court was justified in allowing the appeal
without specifying the nature of reliefs to be granted in favour of
the opponents – original plaintiffs ?”

[HARSHA
DEVANI, J.]

parmar*

   

Top