Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/366/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 366 of 2011
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 669 of 2011
With
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 367 of 2011
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 670 of 2011
=========================================================
GHANSHYAMBHAI
CHANDUBHAI PATEL - Appellant(s)
Versus
HEIR
OF PATEL BIHARIBHAI DAHYABHAI - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
MEHUL S SHAH for
Appellant(s) : 1 - 2.MR SURESH M SHAH for Appellant(s) : 1 - 2.
MR
HARSHADRAY A DAVE for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2,4 - 6.
None for
Respondent(s) : 3,7 - 9.
- for Respondent(s) : 10 -
15.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
Date
: 04/10/2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)
As
the present appeals arise against the common order passed by the
learned Single Judge, they are being considered by this common
order.
Both
the appeals arise against the order dated 25.01.2011 passed by the
learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Applications
No.699 and 670 of 2011, whereby the learned Single Judge, for the
reasons recorded in the order, has dismissed the petitions and has
further directed for quantification of the costs of Rs.25,000/- in
each of the petition.
After
arguments were concluded, when we were not inclined to entertain the
Letters Patent Appeals in view of the decision of the Division Bench
of this Court in the case of Gustadji Dhanjisha Buhariwala v Nevil
Bamansha Buhariwala reported in 2011(2)GLR 1357 and also the
submission of the learned counsel for the appellants to refer the
matter to the larger bench, at that stage, Mr.Shah, learned counsel
for the appellants prayed that the appellants would be desirous to
withdraw the appeals with a view to pursue the proceeding of pending
appeals before the District Court at an early date.
Mr.S.N.
Shelat, learned counsel appearing with Mr.Harshad Dave on behalf of
the main contesting respondents concerned declared before the Court
that the respondents, i.e., his clients shall not insist for the
payment of costs of Rs.25,000/- in each matter as ordered by the
learned single Judge and they shall waive the aspect of recovery of
the costs, if any.
Mr.Nilesh
for respondents no.10 to 15 has supported the stand of the
appellants.
In
above view of the matter, as on the aspects of costs, the
declaration is already made on behalf of the concerned respondents,
no further observation deserves to be made. As the appellants are
desirous to withdraw the appeals, we find it proper to leave the
matter at that stage with a liberty to withdraw the present Letters
Patent Appeals.
The
learned counsel appearing for both the sides have declared before
the Court that if the appellants move the learned District Judge for
early hearing of the concerned appeals, they shall cooperate.
Hence, we observed that if such a motion is made, the attempt shall
be made by the concerned District Court to decide the appeals as
early as possible.
Both
the appeals are disposed of accordingly.
It
is observed that rights and contentions of both the sides in the
pending appeals before the District Court shall remain open.
(JAYANT
PATEL, J.)
(R.M.
CHHAYA, J.)
*bjoy
Top