Gujarat High Court High Court

Hasmukhbhai vs Khodaji on 22 October, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Hasmukhbhai vs Khodaji on 22 October, 2010
Author: K.M.Thaker,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

AO/273/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

APPEAL
FROM ORDER No. 273 of 2010
 

With
 

CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 9646 OF
2010 
 
=========================================================

 

HASMUKHBHAI
BHAILALBHAI PATEL - Appellant(s)
 

Versus
 

KHODAJI
JAVANJI DARBAR - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
ASPI M KAPADIA for
Appellant(s) : 1, 
MR RJ GOSWAMI for Respondent(s) : 1, 
MR JV
VAGHELA for Respondent(s) :
1, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
		
	

 

Date
: 22/10/2010 

 

ORAL
ORDER

1. Present
appeal is directed against the order dated 14.07.2010 passed by the
learned Trial Court in application for interim relief (Exh:5) filed
by present appellant-plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No.326 of 2009,
whereby the learned Trial Court has rejected the injunction
application (Exh:5) and has vacated ex-parte status quo order which
was granted on 29th
October, 2009.

2. More
than, three months have passed-by since the impugned order dated
14.07.2010 rejecting the injunction application and vacating the stay
order was passed. It transpires from the record that the appeal was
filed somewhere in August-2010, and thereafter, it has been adjourned
from time to time and it is for the first time that it is being
prosecuted for admission hearing today.

3. The
appellant has challenged the order passed at the interlocutory stage
rejecting the injunction application. As noted above,
almost three months have passed-by since the order was passed and if
the relief, as prayed for by the appellant were to be granted, now it
would amount to granting fresh order of interim relief. The fact
situation as on the date of the suit and/or as on the date when the
impugned order came to be passed might have undergone change in the
interregnum.

4. This
Court has been informed that after the impugned order was passed, any
substantial progress in the suit proceedings has not been made and
even the issues are yet not framed.

5. The
defendant had filed caveat and Mr.Kavina, learned Senior Advocate has
appeared with Mr.Goswami, learned advocate for the opponent-original
defendant.

6. Having
regard to the contention raised in the appeal, Notice
returnable on 19th
November, 2010. Mr.Goswami, learned advocate, waives service of
notice for the defendant.

7. Before
the returnable, the parties will file paper book.

Order
in Civil Application No.9646 of 2010

Civil
Application to be heard with the appeal, on the returnable date.

(K.M.

Thaker, J.)

rakesh/

   

Top