Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/5768/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5768 of 2010
=====================================
LALGAR
ALIAS LALO NARAYAN GOSWAMI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
NARESHBHAI
GOVINDBHAI MODI & 11 - Respondent(s)
=====================================
Appearance
:
MR PANCHAL with SHIVANIRAJ
PUROHIT for Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
12.
=====================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 06/05/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1.0 The
petitioner applicant of Probate Application No. 43 of 2006 is
before this Court contending that the objectors, who filed
exh. 14
application in the aforesaid Probate Application on
15th
September 2006, a copy of which is produced at Annexure ‘B’ to this
petition, were in know of the order passed by this Court in Appeal
from Order No. 79 of 2009 with Civil Application No. 2406 of 2009 on
30th November 2009 and without disclosing the fact that
they have already prayed to the Court by filing exh. 14 in the
Probate Application to be impleaded as party respondents, they filed
a new suit being Special Civil Suit No. 23 of 2010 and obtained an
order of appointment of Commissioner and got the Commissioner Report
prepared, which is they want to the Court to take into consideration
for passing appropriate orders in Special Civil Suit No. 23 of 2010.
2.0 The
learned advocate Mr. Panchal for the petitioner vehemently submitted
that this is nothing but an abuse of process of Court, more
particularly, when the plaintiffs of Special Civil Suit No. 23 of
2010 are the objectors in Probate Application No. 43 of 2006,
wherein, they them selves have filed exh. 14 and have requested the
Court to permit them to be impleaded as respondents in the
proceedings and they are also in know of the order passed by the High
Court in Appeal from Order No. 79 of 2009 as the said order was
placed on record before the Collector, Surat, where the plaintiffs of
Special Civil Suit No. 23 of 2010 were also the parties.
2.1 The
learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that this is done so as
to steal a march over the present petitioner in the matter of
possession of the property. He submitted that the matter assumes
greatest significance in light of the fact that the Probate
Application No. 43 of 2006 and the application exh. 14 filed by the
plaintiffs of the suit is fixed for hearing on 14th May
2010. He submitted that after expiry of about four years, the suit
is filed only with a view to see that the plaintiffs of that suit are
able to obtain orders at the back of the petitioner by getting an
ex-parte order of appointment of Commissioner.
2.2 The
learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that if status quo, as
on today, is not ordered that will prejudice the rights of the
petitioner and will also render the hearing of the Probate
Application No. 43 of 2006 and exh. 14 application adversely
affected. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the
fact that the plaintiffs of new suit i.e. Special Civil Suit
No.
23 of 2010, though in know of an order passed by this Court dated
30th November 2009, is not brought to the notice of the
Court shows their ill design and oblique motive.
3.0 The
matter requires consideration. Hence, Rule.
3.1 Notice
as to Interim Relief returnable on 15th
June 2010.
Ad-interim relief in terms of Para 9(C).
Direct service is permitted today.
[
Ravi R. Tripathi, J. ]
hiren
Top
