Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
AO/25/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
APPEAL
FROM ORDER No. 25 of 2010
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 320 of 2010
In
APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 25 of 2010
=========================================================
DHIRENDRA
KHUSHALDAS AGAJA & 1 - Appellant(s)
Versus
NAVNEETBHAI
HIRABHAI RATHOD & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MEHUL S SHAH for
Appellant(s) : 1 - 2.MR SURESH M SHAH for Appellant(s) : 1 - 2.
None
for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR J G VAGHELA for Respondent(s) : 2,
MR
BT GADHAVI for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 18/01/2011
ORAL
ORDER
By
way of present appeal, the appellants have inter alia prayed for
quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 14th
September 2009 passed by the Chamber Judge, City Civil Court No.23,
Ahmedabad, in Civil Suit No.805 of 2009, below application Exh.6/7.
When
this appeal came up for hearing on 23rd June 2010, this
Court passed the following order :
“1.0 Learned
advocate Mr. Shah for the appellants states that as the advocate
engaged by the present appellants returned the papers to the
appellants after order dated 5th April 2010, the
appellants could not file application as was contemplated by order
dated 8th February 2010, relevant part of which, reads as
under:
“In
the above view of the matter, the learned counsel for the appellants
is permitted to raise this objection before the Trial Court because
the objection goes to the root of the matter and relates to the very
foundation of the suit before the Court which has issued injunction.
The
present Appeal from Order is kept pending and the Trial Court
concerned is directed to entertain the application of the appellants
and decide the same after affording opportunity to the respondents.”
2.0 By
order dated 5th April 2010, the Registry was directed to
call for the report from the learned Judge, City Civil Court, so as
to reach this Court on or before 21st April 2010. S. O to
22nd April 2010.
2.1 It
is pointed out that the Report is received from the learned Judge and
the relevant part of it, reads as under:
“With
reference to the subject noted above, I have the honour to state that
this Court was directed to entertain the application of the
appellants and to decide same after affording opportunity to the
respondents within two weeks by Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat’s Order
dated 08/02/2010 of which H.C. Writ No. 283/2010 was received on
11-02-2010 and thereafter matter was lastly kept on 09/03/2010. This
matter was placed on board on 19-02-2010, 22-02-2010 & 23-02-2010
but defendants / appellants have not preferred to file any
application as to objection regarding jurisdiction and therefore,
this Court had proceeded to hear the learned Advocates for respective
parties. The defendants did not wanted to file application raising
objection as to jurisdiction and they have admitted the jurisdiction
of this Court. Hence, I heard the both the side advocates and passed
further order on 25-02-2010 below N.M. Exhibit 6/7. A simple copy of
said order is attached herewith for your Honours reference.
3.0 The
learned advocate Mr. Shah for the appellants seeks three
weeks’ time to put his house in order. The request is granted.”
Thus,
in view of the aforesaid order as well as the report dated 19th
April 2010 forwarded by the concerned learned Judge, it transpires
that the appellants have not chosen to prefer any application before
the trial Court.
Having
considered the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the
appellants, contentions raised in the appeal and on perusal of the
impugned order, it transpires that the observations made by the
trial Court are just and proper. Hence, it will not be appropriate
to entertain present appeal at this stage.
For
the foregoing reasons, present appeal fails and is, accordingly,
dismissed. Notice is discharged with no order as to costs.
Consequently, the Civil Application also stands disposed of.
It is, however, clarified that the said observations made by the
trial Court in the impugned order are tentative in nature and will
not come against the appellants in future.
It
is further clarified that if an application is moved by the
appellants before the trial Court for expediting the suit
proceedings, the trial Court will consider the same.
(K.S.
Jhaveri, J)
Aakar
Top