Gujarat High Court High Court

Kumudchandra vs Bai on 1 August, 2008

Gujarat High Court
Kumudchandra vs Bai on 1 August, 2008
Author: Mohit S. D.H.Waghela,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

LPA/77120/2008	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 771 of 2008
 

In
 


SPECIAL CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 9700 of 2008
 

With
 


CIVIL APPLICATION
No. 8982 of 2008
 

In


 

LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 771 of 2008
 

 


 

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


 

KUMUDCHANDRA
VELCHAND SHAH - Appellant(s)
 

Versus
 

BAI
SAMARATH JAIN SWETAMBER MURTIPUJAK GYNO UDDHARAK TRUST & 6 -
Respondent(s)
 

=================================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
HARIN P RAVAL for Appellant(s) : 1, 
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
7. 
=================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.S.SHAH
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 01/08/2008 

 

ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.S.SHAH)

Without
going into the question whether this Letters Patent Appeal is
maintainable, otherwise also, the Appeal deserves to be dismissed, as
the contentions sought to be raised in this Appeal were already
raised earlier in Civil Revision Application No.1139 of 1986, which
came to be dismissed by a learned Single Judge by judgment dated
17.10.2002.

At
this stage, Mr. Harin P. Raval, learned counsel for the appellant,
submits that the appellant may be given sometime to vacate the
suit-premises.

Since
this Appeal is filed only by original defendant no.1 and the decree
of eviction was passed inter alia on the ground that the
suit-premises were sub-let by the appellant’s father to defendant
nos. 2 and 3 (present respondent nos. 6 and 7), it would be for the
concerned parties, who are in possession of the suit premises, to
move the executing court with such a request.

The
Letters Patent Appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed and is
hereby dismissed.

(M.S.

SHAH, Actg. C.J.)

(D.H. WAGHELA, J.)

[sn
devu] pps

   

Top