Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SA/18/2011 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SECOND
APPEAL No. 18 of 2011
with
SECOND
APPEAL No.45 of 2011
=========================================
SUNDARBEN
WD/O DHANJI RUPA MER - Appellant(s)
Versus
LABHUBEN
SARDULBHAI & 9 - Defendant(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
SUNIL C PATEL for
Appellant(s) : 1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.2.5, 1.2.6, 1.2.7,
1.2.8, 1.2.9,1.2.10
SERVED BY AFFIX.(N) for Defendant(s) : 1,
MR
PRADEEP PATEL for Defendant(s) : 1 - 7.
NOTICE SERVED for
Defendant(s) : 2 - 6.
UNSERVED-EXPIRED (N) for Defendant(s) :
0.0.0
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Defendant(s) : 8,
NOTICE
UNSERVED for Defendant(s) :
9,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI
Date
: 20/07/2011
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
Mr. S. C. Patel and Mr. Y. J. Patel, learned advocates appearing on
behalf of the appellants in these appeals and Mr. Pradeep Patel,
learned advocate appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents.
Having
regard to the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the
respective parties and considering the judgement of the first
Appellate Court, the matters require consideration. Hence, ADMIT.
The following substantial questions of law arise for determination
:
“[1] Whether
the first Appellate Court was justified in setting aside the
judgement and decree passed by the Trial Court which was based upon
appreciation of the evidence on record, without assigning any valid
and cogent reasons for reversing the findings recorded by the Trial
Court?
[2] Whether
the impugned judgement and decree suffers from the vice of being
based on mere surmises and conjectures?
[3] Whether
while setting aside the judgement and decree passed by the Trial
Court, the first Appellate Court has not properly appreciated the
evidence on record?”
[HARSHA
DEVANI, J.]
parmar*
Top