Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
MCA/2147/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 2147 of 2010
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 23462 of 2006
=========================================================
JAGDISHBHAI
MOHANLAL VYAS - Applicant(s)
Versus
ARUNABEN
WD/O RAJNIKANT R VYAS THROUGH & 5 - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
RK MISHRA for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR DHARMESH V SHAH for Opponent(s) : 1 - 4.
MR
MEHUL S SHAH for Opponent(s) : 5,
MR SURESH M SHAH for Opponent(s)
: 5,
MRS YOGINI V PARIKH for Opponent(s) :
6,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
Date
: 18/10/2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)
The
basis of the present petition is the alleged breach and
non-compliance to the order dated 13.03.2007 passed by this Court in
Special Civil Application No.23462 of 2006 read with order passed by
the Civil Court in the concerned suit proceedings.
The
grievance on the part of the petitioner was that on the face of the
order of this Court read with the order of the Civil Court to
maintain the status quo of the property, a conveyance deed was
executed and thereby there was breach and non-compliance to the
order for which the petitioner prayed to for imposition of
punishment upon the respondent concerned.
After
the matter was heard for sometime, initially there was development
for talk of settlement which did not materialise and ultimately, on
30.09.2009, the following order was passed by this Court –
“(1) We
may record that earlier time was being taken on one ground or
another, as if the matter is to be settled between the parties, by
the learned counsel Mr.Shirish Sanjanwala appearing with Mr.Kanojiya.
It was stated by the learned counsel that in order to put an end to
the issue, the respondents have paid part of the amount and will have
to pay substantial remaining amount. However, yesterday, as the
matter was not finalized, it was kept today. We may record that
yesterday the learned counsel, in presence of Shri Girishkumar
Ramanlal Vyas, who was holding Power of Attorney, and under his
instructions prayed to keep the matter today so that the respondents
may come out with some concrete proposal for the manner in which the
amount as may be agreed be paid.
(2) It
appears that today Mr.Kanojiya has tendered a letter addressed by
Arunaben Rajnikant Vyas, respondent No.1 herein, stating that the
respondents are now desirous to engage another advocate and do want
to proceed with the matter and, therefore, he has been relieved as an
advocate. Mr.Dharmesh Shah, learned counsel has stated before the
Court that he has received instructions to appear on behalf of the
respondents and a vakalatnama with no objection of Mr.Kanojiya is
received by him and he shall file the same and he has further
tendered affidavit-in-reply on behalf of the respondents stating that
they had no knowledge about the order and the Power of Attorney
Holder Shri Girishkumar Ramanlal Vyas had executed a sale deed
without informing them.
(3) Under
the circumstances, we find that Shri Girishkumar Ramanlal Vyas, who
is the executant of the sale deed in contravention of the order of
this Court and Shri Kanubhai Ramanbhai Patel, who is the beneficiary
of such breach of the order of this Court, are required to be joined
as the parties in the present proceedings.
(4) Hence,
leave to join Shri Girishkumar Ramanlal Vyas and Shri Kanubhai
Ramanbhai Patel as party respondents. NOTICE to the newly
added parties, returnable on 10.10.2011 with further direction
that respondent No.1, Arunaben Rajnikant Vyas, Shri Girishkumar
Ramanlal Vyas and Shri Kanubhai Ramanbhai Patel shall remain
personally present before the Court on the returnable date. Police
Inspector, Naroda Police Station, Ahmedabad shall ensure that the
order is served upon those persons and they remain personally present
before this Court on 10.10.2011.
(5) In
the meantime, if respondent Nos.1 to 4 desirous to purge from
contempt by cancellation of the sale deed, which is alleged to be a
breach of the order of this Court, may do so and report to this Court
on the next date.”
Thereafter,
when the matter is taken up today, learned counsel has stated that
the affidavit is filed by Vyas Girish Ramanlal dated 12.10.2011
stating that the cancellation deed of the alleged sale deed whereby
interim order was breached has been executed on 11.10.2011 and copy
of the cancellation deed as well as the registration receipt are
produced with the said affidavit and the said deponent as well as
Arunaben Wd/o Rajnikant R. Vyas, respondent no.1 have tendered
apology for the alleged breach.
Considering
the facts and circumstances, since the alleged breach has been
undone by the conduct of the respondent no.6, the lenient view can
be taken on the aspect of imposition of punishment for imprisonment
upon the respondents.
We
would have considered the matter for imposition of penalty and cost,
however, at that stage, Mr.Shah and Mr. Dharmesh shah, learned
counsel for the respondents state that their client shall pay the
cost of Rs.30000 to the petitioner and additionally deposit the
amount of Rs.10000 with the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority
for the aforesaid action.
Mr.Mishra
for the petitioner has no objection for such purpose.
Under
the circumstances, we find that the same would meet with the ends of
justice. We direct the respondents to comply with the declaration
within a period of two weeks from today. Upon compliance of the
declaration, now no further cause would survive for the petitioner.
Hence,
the petition is disposed of accordingly. Liberty to revive in the
event the declaration made and the direction given is not complied
with.
(JAYANT
PATEL, J.)
(R.M.
CHHAYA, J.)
*bjoy
Top