Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SA/115/2008 2/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SECOND
APPEAL No. 115 of 2008
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 6540 of 2008
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
BALUBHAI
BHANGIYABHAI CHAUDHARI & 4 - Appellant(s)
Versus
AMRUTBHAI
BABUBHAI CHAUDHARY & 5 - Defendant(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
HRIDAY BUCH for
Appellant(s) : 1 - 5.
None for Defendant(s) : 1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2,
1.3.1, 1.3.2, 1.3.3,1.3.4 -
6.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 10/07/2008
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1.0 This
appeal arises out of the judgment and order passed by the learned Jt.
District Judge & Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 5, Surat
at Vyara in Regular Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2000 dated 15.01.2008
whereby, the said appeal was dismissed.
2.0 The
facts in brief are as under;
2.1 The
respondents, original plaintiffs, filed a suit being Regular Civil
Suit No. 18 of 1991 before the Court of learned Jt. Civil Judge
(J.D.), Bardoli praying for a permanent injunction against the
appellants, original defendants, restraining them from interfering
with their possession in respect of the property bearing Cone Nos.
514, 523 and 537 of Village Kalamukhi, Taluka Valod, District Surat.
The said suit came to be allowed by the trial Court vide judgment and
order dated 31.12.1999.
2.2 Being
aggrieved by the said order, the appellants preferred an appeal being
Regular Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2000 before the Presiding Officer, Fast
Track Court No. 5, Surat at Vyara. The appellate Court, after hearing
the parties and after considering the evidence on record, dismissed
the appeal of the appellants. Hence, this appeal.
3.0 Heard
learned Advocate for the appellant and perused the documents on
record. While considering the case of the appellants, both the Courts
below have discussed the entire evidence in detail. I am in complete
agreement with the reasonings given by and the findings arrived at by
both the Courts below and find no reasons to interfere in this
appeal. No substantial question of law arises within the meaning of
Section 100 of C.P.C.
4.0 In
the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.]
ORDER
IN CIVIL APPLICATION
Since
the main matter has been disposed of, the civil application shall not
survive. It stands disposed of accordingly.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.]
Pravin/*
Top