Gujarat High Court High Court

Chandrakantbhai vs Bhupendrabhai on 5 April, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Chandrakantbhai vs Bhupendrabhai on 5 April, 2011
Author: Ks Jhaveri,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

AO/137/2011	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

APPEAL
FROM ORDER No. 137 of 2011
 

With


 

CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 4449 of 2011
 

In
APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 137 of 2011
 

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

 

CHANDRAKANTBHAI
KANUBHAI SHAH - Appellant(s)
 

Versus
 

BHUPENDRABHAI
KANUBHAI SHAH - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR.HEMANG
H PARIKH for
Appellant(s) : 1,MR RASESH H PARIKH for Appellant(s) : 1, 
MR MANAV
A MEHTA for Respondent(s) :
1, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 05/04/2011 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

1.0 This
Appeal From Order is directed against the judgment and order dated
17.03.2011 passed by the learned City Civil Judge, Ahmedabad below
application Exh. 6 and 7 in Notice of Motion No. 481 of 2011 in Civil
Suit No. 605 of 2011 whereby the learned City Civil Judge has
restrained the appellant-original defendant from continuing with the
renovation work on the suit property being 11-A, Kalpataru Society,
Ankur, Naranpura.

2.0 The
status quo is granted by the learned trial Court and it is extended
to 18.04.2011 on request of the respondent-original plaintiff.
Liberty was granted to the defendant to move for early hearing
Therefore, the appropriate remedy for the appellant is to make
application to prepone the date of the hearing of notice of motion.
If such an application is made, the trial Court will consider the
same and will take the notice of motion and decide the same on
day-today basis. It is further directed that the trial Court will not
adjourn the matter on non-availability of advocate of the either
side. With the above observation, Appeal From Order stands disposed
of.

3.0 In
view of disposal of Appeal From Order, Civil Application would not
survive and the same stands disposed of accordingly. Direct service
is permitted.

(K.S.JHAVERI,
J.)

niru*

   

Top