IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No 770 of 1995
--------------------------------------------------------------
GUJARAT SMALL INDUSTRIES CORP. LTD
Versus
AGEW STEEL MANUFACTURES PVT LTD
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
MR PV HATHI for Petitioner
MR KF DALAL for Respondent No. 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE H.L.GOKHALE
Date of Order: 24/07/96
ORAL ORDER
1.Heard Mr. Hathi for the applicant and Mr. Dalal
for the respondent. The respondent has filed a suit
against the applicant in the Court of Small Causes
contending that the applicant is carrying on construction
in the rented premises and the same is illegal. During
the pendency of the suit, the applicant moved an
application for injunction, that trial court declined to
grant primarily on the assurance of the respondent that
they would remove the disputed construction if the
respondent succeeds in the suit. The appeal court of the
Small Causes Court reversed of that finding and in my
view rightly. The applicant had already put up two Weigh
Bridges on the demised land – one of 20 tons and another
of 3 tons and they intend to enhance the capacity to 25
tons. The landlord has objected to that and the landlord
does have the right to object to it and from that point
of view the appeal court has rightly granted the
injunction sought by the respondent herein. Mr. Hathi
for the applicant has referred to the judgment of the
Supreme Court reported in 1990 (suppl) SCC 727 to contend
that where the court of first instance exercise its
jurisdiction in a particular manner, the appeal court is
not expected to interfere therein unless exercise of
jurisdiction is arbitrary or capricious or perverse. The
judgment also shows that if the discretion has been
exercised by trial court reasonably and in a judicial
manner, the appeal court should not interfere. In the
instant case I do not find that the trial court had
exercised the jurisdiction reasonably. In the facts of
the case, the appeal court was right in interfering with
the order passed and, therefore, I do not find any error
in the order passed by the appeal court. This Civil
Revision Application is, therefore, rejected.
Mr. Hathi for the applicant prays that the suit
may be expedited. It will be for the parties to apply to
the trial court, whereupon the trial court to endeavour
to give an early date of hearing.
(H.L. GOHALE, J.)
Date: 24th July, 1996