Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
AO/156/2008 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
APPEAL
FROM ORDER No. 156 of 2008
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 6055 of 2008
In
APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 156 of 2008
=========================================================
BHAGWANBHAI
BHAILALBHAI SOLANKI & 2 - Appellant(s)
Versus
DALSUKHBHAI
MOTIBHAI PARMAR & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
PF MAKWANA for
Appellant(s) : 1 - 3.
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 11/07/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1.
Present appeal from order is filed by the appellants-original
defendants challenging the order passed by the learned 6th
Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Vadodara dated 28.2.2008 passed below
Exh.5 in Special Civil Suit No.974 of 2002 by which the trial court
has directed the appellants herein-original defendants to maintain
status-quo position of the suit land till the final disposal of the
suit.
2.
The original plaintiffs had filed a Special Civil Suit No.974 of
2002 before the trial court for declaration to declare the decree as
null and void and for permanent injunction. In the said suit, the
plaintiffs submitted application Exh.5 for temporary injunction to
restrain the defendants from transferring the same in any manner
whatsoever and from implementing the decree passed in view of
Karardad with respect to the land in question. Considering the
serious disputes with regard to Karardad and the consent decree and
the allegations and with a view to avoid further multiplicity of the
proceeding and third parties rights are not created, the trial court
in a well reasoned speaking order has exercised discretion and has
granted application Exh.5 by directing the appellants-original
defendants to maintain status-quo.
3. Shri
P.F.Makwana, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants
has submitted that even the original plaintiffs have gone to the
extent of making allegations against the learned Judge. However,
learned advocate is not in a position to substantiate the same. On
the contrary, looking to the application, it appears that the
original defendants have submitted that though the trial court
pointed out that the Karardad is not in the interest of the parties,
still the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original
defendants insisted to pass the consent decree. There are serious
allegations against the learned advocate appearing on behalf of
defendants which are required to be considered and dealt with at the
time of trial.
4. Considering
the above, when the trial court has exercised discretion judiciously
and has passed the order of status-quo, the same is not required to
be interfered with by this Court. At this stage, the judgment of the
learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Khimjibhai
Harjivanbhai Patadia vs. Patel Govindbhai Bhagvanbhai and others
reported in 2006(4) GLR p.3058 is required to be referred
to in this behalf.
5. In
view of the above, there is no substance in the appeal from order and
hence the same requires to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
6. In
view of dismissal of appeal from order, no order in civil
application.
(
M.R. SHAH, J. )
syed/
Top