Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/30311/2007 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 30311 of 2007
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
=========================================================
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 ?
=========================================================
KANSARA
HIRALAL NATWARLAL & 2 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
CHIMANBHAI
RANCHHODBHAI SHAH & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
PF ADHVARYU for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 3.
None for Respondent(s) : 1 - 3, 3.2.1,
3.2.2, 3.2.3,3.2.4
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 24/06/2008
ORAL JUDGMENT
In
this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioners have challenged the order dated 17.7.2008 passed below
Exh.89 in execution proceedings No.84 of 1994.
Mr.
Adhvaryu appeared on behalf of the petitioners and submitted that
the petitioners herein desired to examine certain witnesses in the
proceedings related to Regular Darkhast No.84 of 1994 and also
desired that certain documents may be duly exhibited. For the said
purpose, application on behalf of the petitioners was moved
requesting the Court to permit the applicants of the said
application (Exh.89) to examine certain witnesses. By order dated
17.7.2007, the learned Court has rejected the said application. In
submission of Mr. Adhvaryu the said order is unjustified and
errornous.
On
perusal of the order, it transpires that the learned Court has
examined the application properly and has taken into account that
the proceedings before the Court in which application is preferred
are ?Sexecution proceedings?? and therefore, it has held that
there was no justification or need for examining any witness or
production of documents during the execution proceedings. The
learned Court has also recorded that the applicants were not able to
point out any provision or any authority under which such an
application can be maintained or entertained. The learned Court,
being of a view that in execution proceedings there is no scope of
examining witness or for production of documents / evidence and that
there was neither justification nor any need to examine any witness
in the execution proceedings, rejected the application and rightly
so. Even otherwise, the petitioner ? applicant has not made out,
as can be seen from perusal of the application, any case and/or has
not given any cogent reason or ground for such opportunity. The
petitioner has failed to give any legally tenable and cogent
justification in support of the prayer in its application. This
Court, therefore, does not find any error or material irregularity
or illegality in the said order hence, present petition is
dismissed. No order as to costs.
Kdc [K.M.Thaker,
J.]
Top