Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/5290/2010 1/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5290 of 2010
=====================================
HARSHAD
JAISANGBHAI PATEL & 1 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
PRADIPBHAI
NARSINHBHAI PATEL - Respondent(s)
=====================================
Appearance
:
MR KM PATEL, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR
ASHISH H SHAH for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2.
MR CB UPADHYAYA for
Respondent(s) : 1,
=====================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 29/04/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1.0 Heard
learned senior advocate Mr. KM Patel with Mr. Ashish H. Shah for the
petitioners original plaintiffs and learned advocate for the
respondent. The petitioners are before this Court being aggrieved by
an order dated 4th April 2009 passed by the learned
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara, whereby the learned trial
Judge was pleased to reject exh. 5 in Regular Civil Suit No. 977 of
2008 and by the order passed by learned Additional District Judge,
Fast Track Court No.2, Vadodara dated 16th April 2010,
whereby the Civil Misc. Appeal No. 63 of 2009 is dismissed and order
passed by the learned trial Judge dated 4th April 2009 is
confirmed.
2.0 The
learned senior advocate for the petitioners invited attention of the
Court to the fact that there was a Public Notice given on 7th
August 2008 in Gujarat Samachar. This Public Notice shows that the
existence of Power of Attorney which is claimed to have been executed
on 1st July 1995, could not have been disbelieved. The
learned senior advocate for the petitioners submitted that the Courts
below have committed an error in not believing the possession of the
petitioners only on some superficial grounds like there was a
difference between the crop mentioned in the affidavits and crop
found by the Court Commissioner at the relevant time. He submitted
that the Courts below have erred in not appreciating the fact that
the affidavits were filed in support of the plaint at the time of
filing of the suit whereas, the Court Commissioner was appointed at a
later stage.
3.0 The
matter requires consideration. Hence, Rule.
3.1 The
status quo granted by the Court below, which is ordered to be
continued till 7th May 2010 is ordered to be continued
till the final disposal of this petition.
[
Ravi R. Tripathi, J. ]
hiren
Top