Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
MCA/925/2011 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR REVIEW No. 925 of 2011
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13099 of 1994
=========================================================
RAMESHBHAI
AMBALAL SHAH - Applicant(s)
Versus
PARASMAL
NARINGMALJI JAIN & 1 - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
JAYRAJ CHAUHAN for
Applicant(s) : 1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2,1.2.3
MS VH PATEL for Applicant(s) : 1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2,1.2.3
MR BC DAVE
for Opponent(s) : 1,
Mr.L.R.Pujari, APP for Opponent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
Date
: 24/03/2011
ORAL
ORDER
This Misc. Civil Application has
been filed to review, recall and or modify the judgment and order
dated 8-3-2011 passed in Special Civil Application No.13099 of 1994.
Heard learned advocate, Mr.Jayraj
Chauhan, for the applicant, Mr.B.C.Dave for the opponent NO.1 and
learned APP, Mr.L.R.Pujari for the opponent No.2.
It is submitted by Mr.Jayraj
Chauhan that the impugned judgment did not incorporate certain
decisions cited by him.
It is to be noted that apart from
the decisions relied on by the learned counsel, Mr.Jayraj Chauhan,
as recorded in the impugned judgment, learned advocate for the
applicant has also relied on the following decisions:
i)
2001(4) G.L.R. Page 3180 in the case of Shamalsha Girdhari Co.Vs.
State of Gujarat and Ors;
ii)
1995 Supp(3) Supreme Court Cases page 249 in the case of State of
Orissa and Others Vs. Brundaban Sharma and another; and
iii)
AIR 2005 Supreme Court page 592 in the case of Board of Control for
Cricket, India and another Vs. Netaji Cricket Club and others.
He has also taken this Court through
relevant provisions of Contract Act, 1872 and the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882.
There
cannot be any dispute regarding the ratio laid down by the High
Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decisions cited by
the learned advocate, Mr.Jayraj Chauhan. However, looking to
the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that facts of
the present case and facts in the aforesaid decisions relied on by
Mr.Jayraj Chauhan are totally different and hence, aforesaid
decisions are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Apart
from the above, it is reiterated that the proceedings were initiated
after a period of 13 years and hence, relying on the decision a
Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Vitthalbhai
M.Patel & Others Vs. Deputy Collector & Another in
Letters Patent Appeal No.363 of 2000 in Special Civil
Application No.3250 of 1988, impugned
orders were quashed and set aside by this Court and Special Civil
Application was allowed.
No interference is called for in the said findings.
Thus,
this Misc. Civil Application is partly allowed. Decisions cited by
the learned advocate, Mr.Jayraj Chauhan, for the applicant-original
respondent No.2/3 is incorporated in the impugned judgment. Stay
granted by this Court in Special Civil Application No.13099 of 1994
is extended till 7-4-2011.
(M.D.SHAH,J.)
radhan
Top