Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CA/8653/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 8653 of 2010
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3134 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3134 of 2009
=============================================
BELABEN
URMISHBHAI GANDHI & 1 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
HIRALAL
KANCHANLAL MODI & 4 - Respondent(s)
=============================================
Appearance :
MR
HR PRAJAPATI for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2.
MR ARPIT A KAPADIA for
Respondent(s) : 1 - 5.
=============================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 26/08/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. The
writ petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India challenging the order dated 19.2.2008 passed below application
Exh.43 in Special Civil Suit No.64 of 2007, by which, application
filed by the plaintiff for attachment before judgment came to be
rejected.
2. Initially
this Court passed a detailed order on 16.11.2009. While admitting
the matter and upon a statement made by learned advocate on behalf of
respondents to seek instructions about willingness and readiness of
the respondents to furnish the adequate security, the matter was
adjourned.
3. It
seems that subsequent to this order, the respondents on 10.12.2009
filed an application Exh.65 in the above Special Civil Suit No.64 of
2007, by which, the respondents submitted two different security
bonds, which came to be objected by the plaintiff vide Exh.70 on
8.1.2010 and after hearing the parties learned Principal Senior Civil
Judge passed an order on 2nd February, 2010, by which
objections of the plaintiff came to be rejected. However, directions
were given to the extent that suit be decided on or before December,
2010. However, it appears from the order that no specific order was
passed about acceptance of the security furnished by the defendant
but prior to the operative order it was observed by the trial court
that for the moment, security furnished by the defendant as per
direction of the High Court appeared to be adequate.
4. Since
directions have already been given by learned Principal Senior Civil
Judge to decide the suit proceedings finally on or before December,
2010 and securities furnished by the defendant is found adequate and
to remain on record of the proceedings, trial court is directed to
decide the suit on or before 31st December, 2010.
5. Meanwhile,
the defendant is allowed to enter into negotiation with 3rd
party so as to dispose of the property but shall not create any 3rd
party rights finally and if necessary, may seek permission of the
trial court.
6. With
the aforesaid, Special Civil Application along with Civil Application
stand disposed of. Rule discharged with no order as to costs. Stay
granted earlier stands vacated.
[ANANT
S. DAVE, J.]
//smita//
Top