Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CA/8012/2008 1 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR STAY No. 8012 of 2008
In
APPEAL
FROM ORDER No. 240 of
2008
=========================================================
SAIYED
ISMAIL SAIYEDMIYA & 1 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
SAIYED
SHAHIDBANU AHMEDHUSEN & 5 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
DP KINARIWALA for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 1.2.1,1.2.2 - 2, 2.2.1, 2.2.2,2.2.3
None for
Respondent(s) : 1 - 4, 6,
MR VAKMIK VYAS FOR MR AJAY R MEHTA for
Respondent(s) : 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4,1.2.5 - 2, 2.2.2, 2.2.3,
2.2.4, 2.2.5,2.2.6
UNSERVED-EXPIRED (R) for Respondent(s) : 3,
-
for Respondent(s) : 0.0.0, 4.2.1,6.2.1
RULE SERVED for
Respondent(s) : 6.2.2
SERVED BY AFFIX.-(R) for Respondent(s) :
5,5.2.1
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 15/09/2010
ORAL ORDER
The
appeal is directed against the order dated 08.05.2008 passed by the
learned trial Court below application Exh.5 in Special Civil Suit
No.15 of 2008. By the impugned order dated 08.05.2008, the learned
trial Court directed the opponents to maintain status-quo. Aggrieved
by the said order, the original defendant Nos.1/2, 2/1, 2/2 and 2/3
have preferred present appeal.
The
appeal came to be admitted by order dated 17.07.2008. It appears that
on the same day i.e. on 17.07.2008, the Court passed a separate order
on Civil Application seeking stay of operation of the impugned order.
By the separate order passed on Civil Application, Court issued Rule,
which was made returnable on 1st August, 2008. Since then,
any order, even of ad-interim relief, does not appear to have been
passed. Meaning thereby, the impugned order has remained in operation
since May 2008 and without anything more there would be no
justification to stay the operation of an order after 2 years. It may
also amount to putting the clock back to May 2008 and restoring
status quo. Hence, on same averments and ground as made out in 2008,
the stay of operation of order passed 2 years before cannot be
granted. Therefore, the application for interim relief originally
filed along with the appeal has lost its efficacy and purpose and
therefore, the said Civil Application is disposed of at this stage.
Mr.
Kinariwala, learned advocate, has submitted that the application
could not be prosecuted effectively for the reason that some times it
was not heard for one or other reason and much time was consumed in
mediation proceedings.
While disposing of the application, it is, however, clarified that it
would be open to the appellants to move appropriate application
seeking appropriate relief either against the impugned order or any
subsequent action, on the grounds available in law and it would be
open to the opponents to oppose such application in accordance with
law. In other words, if and when any application is preferred by
present appellants for any interim relief or for other directions, it
would be open to the parties of the appeal to prosecute the
application in accordance with law on all available grounds.
With
the aforesaid clarification, the Civil Application is disposed of.
[K.M.Thaker,
J.]
kdc
Top