Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SA/30/2009 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SECOND
APPEAL No. 30 of 2009
=========================================================
BHANJIBHAI
SAVABHAI SATWARA - Appellant(s)
Versus
DIWALIBEN
PREMJIBHAI SATWARA & 3 - Defendant(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
ASHISH M DAGLI for
Appellant(s) : 1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.2.5, 1.2.6,
1.2.7,1.2.8
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for Defendant(s) : 1 - 2,2.2.2 -
4,4.2.2
MR SUDHIR SHAH for Defendant(s) : 1,
None for
Defendant(s) : 2 -
4.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MS.JUSTICE BELA TRIVEDI
Date
: 12/05/2011
ORAL
ORDER
Admit.
Following
substantial questions of law arise for the determination in this
second appeal:
Whether
the Courts below have materially erred in law in not holding that
the suit of the plaintiff was barred by law of Limitation ?
Whether
the courts below have materially erred in law in not holding that
the suit of the plaintiff was barred by delay, latches and
acquiescence ?
Whether
the courts below have materially erred in law in misappreciating the
documentary evidence, more particularly, document at Ex. 46, and in
decreeing the suit by holding that the plaintiff was entitled to
the ½ share in the suit properties ?
Whether
the courts below have materially erred in law in not holding that
the Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff could not have
deposed in place of the plaintiff, in view of the ratio of judgment
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2005 SC 439 ?
Whether
the courts below have materially erred in law in not drawing an
adverse inference against the plaintiff, who did not step into the
witness box to prove her case ?
Whether
the lower appellate Court has materially erred in law in not raising
the points for determination, as contemplated in Order 41 Rule 31 of
CPC ?
[
BELA TRIVEDI, J.]
mandora/
Top