Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
AO/57/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
APPEAL
FROM ORDER No. 57 of 2011
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 1809 of 2011
In
APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 57 of 2011
=========================================================
DINESH
RAVJIBHAI VAGHELA - Appellant(s)
Versus
NARANBHAI
POPATBHAI KATHIRIA & 3 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
PV HATHI for
Appellant(s) : 1,
MR CL SONI for Respondent(s) : 1 -
4.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 01/03/2011
COMMON
ORAL ORDER
By
way of present Appeal From Order, the appellant has inter alia
prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 07th
July 2010 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gondal, below
application Exhibit 10 in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.10 of
2010, whereby the trial Court has rejected the said application
Exhibit 10 for interim injunction.
It
is the case of the appellant that the suit filed by the appellant
was dismissed for non-prosecution. Hence, the appellant had
preferred application for restoration of the said suit. However,
during pendency of the said suit, as there was no interim
injunction, the appellant herein filed application Exhibit 10 for
interim injunction, which ultimately came to be rejected vide
impugned order dated 07th July 2010. Hence, present
appeal.
Heard
learned advocates for the respective parties.
Having
considered the contentions raised by the learned advocates for the
respective parties, contentions raised in the appeal and on perusal
of the impugned order, it transpires that the trial Court has
rejected the said application Exhibit on the ground of delay.
However, the ultimately conclusion arrived at by the trial Court
seems to just and proper in view of the fact that application
Exhibit 10 for interim injunction is not maintainable at all as the
suit has been disposed of and the same has not been restored till
date. So far as the contention of the learned advocate for the
appellant that the trial Court ought to have exercised powers under
Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is concerned, it is
pertinent to note that when the suit has already been disposed of,
there is no question of exercise of powers under Section 151 of the
Code. Thus, the trial Court has rightly not entertained the
application Exhibit 10.
In
view of aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the
trial Court is just and proper. Over and above aforesaid reasons, I
adopt the reasons assigned by the trial Court. No case is made out
to interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court.
Hence, present appeal deserves to be dismissed.
For
the foregoing reasons, present appeal fails and is, accordingly,
dismissed. Consequently, the Civil Application also stands disposed
of.
It
is, however, clarified that if an application is moved by the
appellant before the trial Court for expediting the hearing of the
restoration application, the trial Court will consider the same and
will dispose of the restoration application on day-to-day basis.
The Appeal From Order stands disposed of accordingly.
Consequently, the Civil Application stands disposed of.
(K.S.
Jhaveri, J)
Aakar
Top