MCA/2411/2008 3/ 3 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION - FOR REVIEW No. 2411 of 2008 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 29610 of 2007 ====================================== VINUBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL & 1 - Applicant(s) Versus KOKILABEN D/O RANCHHODBHAI MOTIBHAI W/O RAISINGBHAI & 3 - Opponent(s) ====================================== Appearance : MR JA ADESHRA for Applicant(s) : 1 - 2. None for Opponent(s) : 1 - 4. ====================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI Date : 22/11/2010 ORAL ORDER
1. The
applicants (original petitioners) seek review of common order dated
7.2.2008 passed in Special Civil Application No. 25235 of 2007 and
Special Civil Application No. 29610 of 2007.
2. The
counsel for the applicants vehemently contended that the observation
of the Court in the said order that though initially petitioners were
not joined, they were later on permitted to be brought on record, is
not accurate. He further submitted that injunction was granted in
favour of the respondent in a counter claim contrary to the material
on record. He, therefore, submitted that the order dated 7.2.2008 is
required to be recalled and reviewed.
3. I
am, however, of the opinion that this application is not required to
be granted. Firstly, against order dated 7.2.2008, present review
application was filed on 6.3.2008. For about 2 years thereafter, no
steps were taken to get the review application heard. Secondly, the
main petition pertains to interim injunction pending civil suit. The
petitions were disposed of with following observations:-
“3. Upon
hearing the learned advocate for the petitioners and upon perusing
the material on record, I do not find that the courts below committed
any legal error. They have, prima facie, come to the conclusion that
the petitioners are not in possession of the suit land contrary to
what is contended by the petitioners. Agreement to sell dated 15.1.86
does not state handing over the possession of th suit land to the
petitioners. There were other material such as report of the
Mamlatdar and Commissioner to indicate that the petitioners were not
in possession.
4. In
view of the above position, I do not find that there is any scope for
interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution.
5. The
above observations are made only to decide the interlocutory stage of
the suit and will not come in the way of the petitioners in perusing
their contentions. With these observations, the petitions are
dismissed. It will be open for the petitioners to seek expediting of
the suits which will be considered by the learned Judge depending on
his workload.”
4. From
the above, it can, therefore, be seen that the observation that the
petitioners were permitted to be brought on record in the civil suit
was only for narration of facts and even if there is some inaccuracy
in such a statement, the order was not passed on this basis and was
based on the observations made in para 3 noted hereinabove.
5. Further,
I find that the petitioners were granted liberty to seek early
disposal of the suit. The counsel for the petitioners is unable to
state as to what is the present state of civil suit.
6. Considering
all these aspects of the matter, no case for review is made out.
Application is, therefore, disposed of.
(Akil
Kureshi, J.)
sudhir