Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/9006/2008 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9006 of 2008
=========================================================
INDIRABEN
GIRISHKUMAR BRAHMBHATT & 1 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
DHARMISHTHABEN
PRAVINCHNDRA BHARAVA (WIFE) - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR.B
K.RAJ for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 1.2.1,1.2.2 - 2.
None for Respondent(s) : 1,
1.2.1, 1.2.2,1.2.3
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 29/07/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1.
By way of this petition under Artyicle 227 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioners-original defendants i.e. heirs of original
defendant has prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction,
quashing and setting aside the orders dated 16.10.2007 (Annexure ?SB??)
and the order dated 18.10.2007 (Annexure ?SD??) passed by the Small
Causes Court at Baroda by which the learned trial court has dismissed
the applications submitted by the petitioners below Exh.192 and
Exh.193 to reopen the right of the petitioners to cross-examine and
to produce certain documents. Considering the Rojkam, it appears that
number of opportunities have been given to the petitioners to
cross-examine the plaintiffs and to lead evidence but for whatever be
the reason the petitioners – original defendants have not availed of
that opportunity. It is also required to be noted that in fact in
an application under Section 11 of the Bombay Rent Act vide order
dated 5.1.1996 on non-compliance of the order passed under Section 11
of the Rent Act, right to defend the suit of the defendant has
already been closed and the same is not challenged till date. This is
a suit of 1985 and still the same is not concluded. Looking to the
Rojkam, it appears that there is a total negligence and the
carelessness on the part of the defendants. As stated above, though
number of opportunities have been given the defendants have not
cross-examine the plaintiffs and it also appears that even the
arguments on the part of the plaintiffs are already over long back
and it was at the stage of the argument of the defendants.
2. Considering
overall facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that
the trial court has committed any error in dismissing the aforesaid
two applications. No interference of this Court in exercise of
powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is called for.
Hence the petition deserves dismissal and accordingly it is
dismissed.
(
M.R. SHAH, J. )
syed/
Top