Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/3724/2009 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3724 of 2009
=========================================================
CHUDASAMA
LABHUBEN W/O VANMALIBHAI SAVJIBHAI & 2 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
DHAMELIYA
VALLABHBHAI DAHYABHAI & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MS
MAMTA R VYAS for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 3.
MR BM MANGUKIYA for Respondent(s) : 1,
MS
BELA A PRAJAPATI for Respondent(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED for
Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 24/09/2010
ORAL
ORDER
The
petition challenging the order dated 19/3/2009 passed by the learned
Principal Civil Judge, Palitana below Exh.61 in Regular Civil Suit
No.106 of 2005 rejecting the application praying for permission to
amend the plaint, came to be filed on or around 15/4/2009 and the
Court heard the petition on 20/4/2009 and issued notice to the
respondents. By the same order dated 20/4/2009, the Court also
stayed the implementation of the impugned order dated 19/3/2009
passed below Exh.61. The said ad interim relief continued until
9/8/2010 when this Court (Coram:A.S.Dave, J.) directed that the
interim relief will continue till further orders.
Heard
learned advocate Ms. Mamta Vyas appearing for the petitioner.
Learned advocate on behalf of Mr.B.M.Mangukiya, learned advocate
appearing for the respondent no.2 requests for adjournment. As
recorded in order dated 9/8/2010, on earlier occasions also the
respondents have been requesting for adjournments.
Considering
the submissions made by the learned advocate appearing for the
petitioner, it appears that the amendment application was moved by
the plaintiff in view of the reply filed by the defendants after
almost two years whereby the defendants tried to submit that actually
plaintiff has sold the suit property to respondent no.2.
In
backdrop of such contention by the defendants the petitioner now
intends to amend the plaint keeping in focus the reply of the
defendants and documents produced by the defendants.
By
the impugned order learned Trail Court has rejected the such request
for such amendment on the ground that it would change the nature an
scope of the plaint.
Even
after almost one and half years any counter opposing the prayer for
interim relief has not been filed. Any counter for opposing the
petition is also not filed.
As
noted above, by order dated 9/8/2010, the Court has directed that the
ad interim relief which was granted by order dated 20/4/2009 to
continue until further orders.
Any
application after 9/8/2010 to get the said ad interim relief/interim
relief vacated has not been taken out/filed by the respondents.
Therefore,
at this stage it appears appropriate to admit the petition for final
hearing.
Thus,
Rule.
Expedited.
(K.M.THAKER,
J.)
(ila)
Top