Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/315/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 315 of 2010
=========================================
AAYESHABEN
W/O MAMADBHAI
Versus
SARASWATIBEN
HIMMATLAL AND OTHERS
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
PRATIK Y JASANI for
the Petitioner
None for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR MAHESH N BHAVSAR
for Respondent(s) : 1.2.1, 1.2.2,1.2.3 - 2.
NOTICE SERVED for
Respondent(s) : 3,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 29/04/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. The petitioner
original applicant is before this Court being aggrieved by an order
passed below application Exh.121 in Regular Civil Suit No.51 of 1988
by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Kalawad dated 19.09.2009.
2. In a suit of 1988, filed
on 21.06.1988, wherein interim order was passed on 02.07.1988,
wherein an appeal was filed on 30.11.1988, wherein the matter was
brought to this Court and which was disposed of by order dated
23.04.2009, on 11.09.2009, the present petition came to be filed
seeking impleadment as party defendant in the proceedings.
3. It is often said that
greed is the root cause of troubles. The present is the glaring
illustration of the same. After the expiry of the original tenant of
commercial premises, an application seeking shelter under all
relevant provisions of Bombay Rent Act, like Section 5(11(C) and
other similar provisions and the decision of this Court as well as
that of the Hon’ble the Apex Court is filed and it is contended that
the applicant is required to be impleaded as party defendant.
3.1 The learned Judge in its
order dated 19.09.2009 has rightly referred to the conduct of the
present petitioner and has observed that he is resorting to delay
tactics. Application Exh.121 was filed at the stage when not only
the evidence of the applicant was over but even the arguments of the
plaintiffs were over and still with a view to see that the
proceedings are stalled, if not completely stalled, they are delayed,
if not delayed up to the satisfaction of the applicant, atleast to
some extent, the application is filed.
3.2 The learned Judge has
very succinctly discussed the facts of the case and has also taken
into consideration the decisions cited before him and then came to a
conclusion that the application deserves to be dismissed and it is
accordingly dismissed.
4. Learned Advocate
Mr.Jasani for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of
this petition before this Court, the suit is already decreed and
against that judgment and decree, an appeal is filed.
This Court cannot
help the present respondent original plaintiff in any other
manner then to dismiss this petition with costs because this Court
has no doubt that the applicant of application Exh.121 is out to
extract money from the original plaintiff and is out to see that the
plaintiff is not able to get fruits of a decree passed in a suit of
1988, in the year 2009-10.
5. The petition is therefore
dismissed with costs of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only),
payment of which is made a condition precedent for filing any further
proceedings in this petition. Notice is discharged. No costs.
(Ravi
R.Tripathi, J.)
*Shitole
Top