Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
MCA/2467/2007 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR REVIEW No. 2467 of 2007
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 23491 of 2006
=============================================
RANCHODBHAI
LAXMANBHAI SAKHIA & 2 - Applicant(s)
Versus
NARANBHAI
LAXMANBHAI SAKHIA - Opponent(s)
=============================================
Appearance
:
MR PRADEEP PATEL for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 3.
MR PRAVIN GONDALIYA for Opponent(s) :
1,
=============================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 09/07/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. This
Misc. Application is preferred by the applicants/defendants to review
the order dated 2.7.2007 passed in Special Civil Application No.23491
of 2006.
2. Mr.
Pradeep Patel, learned advocate for the applicants made strenuous
efforts by submitting that there appears obvious errors at various
places in different paragraphs of the order and ‘plaintiff’ is
referred to as ‘defendant’ and ‘defendant’ as ‘plaintiff’ and the
order can be reconciled by keeping in mind the order passed by the
trial court, which came to be quashed and set aside by the appellate
court. The order below Exh. 5 passed by the trial court, by which,
the defendants were restrained from raising any objection when the
plaintiff visits the suit property to observe the outstanding crops.
It was further directed that the suit land which was in the share of
plaintiff pursuant to Entry No. 540 and the land which was
cultivated, accounts of yield of the crops to be maintained and to be
submitted in the Court. The above order of the trial court came to
be set aside by the appellate court and, therefore, the above Special
Civil Application was filed.
3. Mr.
Pravin Gondaliya, learned advocate for the respondent adheres to the
contents of the order dated 2.7.2007 passed in Special Civil
Application No.23491 of 2006 and submits that pursuant to the above
order, the original plaintiff is in possession of the land.
4. However,
there appears to be some substance in the arguments advanced by
learned advocate for the applicants/original defendants, but efforts
to reconcile words and sentences result into an anomaly, which cannot
be resolved at this stage. It is therefore, necessary that the trial
court be directed to dispose of the suit within six months and till
then the original plaintiff shall submit the account of the yield of
crops of the suit land before the Court below.
5. By
order dated 2.7.2007, the trial court was already directed to dispose
of the suit as expeditiously as possible and, therefore, the parties
are directed not to take unnecessary adjournments and the trial court
shall proceed with the suit so as to dispose of it within six months
from today without being influenced by the order dated 2.7.2007
passed in Special Civil Application No.23491 of 2007 and suit be
decided on its own merit.
6. This
Misc. Application is disposed of accordingly.
[ANANT
S. DAVE, J.]
//smita//
Top