Gujarat High Court High Court

Anantrai vs Surjitsinh on 4 August, 2008

Gujarat High Court
Anantrai vs Surjitsinh on 4 August, 2008
Author: M.R. Shah,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/9978/2008	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9978 of 2008
 

 
 
==========================================
 

ANANTRAI
NANCHAND SHAH - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

SURJITSINH
MAHAVIRSINH GOHIL & 2 - Respondent(s)
 

========================================== 
Appearance
: 
MR MP SHAH
for Petitioner(s) : 1,                                  
                                          MS. KRUTI M SHAH for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
3. 
==========================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 04/08/2008 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

1. By
way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner-original appellant has prayed for appropriate order to
quash and set aside the order dated 16/05/2008 passed by the learned
Additional District Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.
6, Bhavnagar below Exh. 38 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 50/2007 by
which the learned appellate Court has rejected the application
submitted by the petitioner-original appellant to produce the birth
certificate of the respondent-original defendant no. 1.

2. It
is to be noted that the suit came to be filed in the year 2000, which
came to be dismissed in the year 2007, against which the
petitioner-original appellant has preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.
50/2007. In the said appeal, the petitioner-original appellant
submitted an application, under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil
Procedure Code to produce the birth certificate of defendant no. 1,
contending that at the relevant time when the sale deed was executed
in favour of defendant no.1, he was a minor. It cannot be disputed
and it is not in dispute that the contract in favour of a minor would
be voidable and not void.

3. Under
the circumstances and considering the above, when the learned trial
Court has dismissed the application by observing that the certificate
is not required, it cannot be said that the learned appellate Court
has committed an error. No interference of this Court is required in
exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. Hence,
the present Special Civil Application deserves dismissal, and it is
dismissed accordingly.

(M.R.

SHAH, J.)

siji

   

Top