Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SA/72/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SECOND
APPEAL No. 72 of 2010
=========================================
LALLUBHAI
JAGABHAI PATEL & 2 - Appellant(s)
Versus
PRAVINBHAI
ABJIBHAI PATEL - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
DIVYESH A JOSHI for
Appellant(s) : 1 - 3.
MR RUSHAB H SHAH for Appellant(s) : 1 - 3.
MR
DAKSHESH MEHTA for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 21/04/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. The
present Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure has been preferred by the appellants-original defendants to
quash and set aside the impugned judgement and order dated 31st
March, 2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Second
Fast Track Court, Navsari in Regular Civil Appeal No. 40/2003 in
dismissing the same and confirming the judgement and decree dated
27th March, 2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior
Division), Gandevi in Civil Suit No. 131/2000 by which the learned
trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent-original
plaintiff granting injunction as prayed for.
2. Having
heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective
parties and considering the impugned judgement and order passed by
both the Courts below it appears that there are concurrent findings
of fact given by both the Courts below with respect to the right of
the respective parties, more particularly, the appellants-original
defendants in the suit property. On appreciation of evidence, both
the Courts below have concurrently found that the appellants-original
defendants have no right or title on the disputed land in question
and, therefore, allowed the suit and granted permanent injunction
against the appellants-original defendants, which are not required to
be interfered with by this Court in exercise of powers under Section
100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
3. As
such, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
appellants-original defendants has failed to satisfy the Court that
any substantial question of law arises to be considered by this Court
in the present Second Appeal.
4. In
absence of any substantial question of law to be considered by this
Court in the present Second Appeal, the present Second Appeal
deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
(M.R.
SHAH, J.)
siji
Top