Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print LPA/96/2011 4/ 4 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 96 of 2011 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 15416 of 2010 ========================================================= MANSUNGBHAI VAGHJIBHAI PATEL & 6 - Appellant(s) Versus DINESHBHAI RATANBHAI KHARSAN & 10 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR NIRAV R MISHRA for Appellant(s) : 1 - 7. MR DIPEN A DESAI for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2. NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 3 - 8. MRS KRINA CALLA, AGP for Respondent(s) : 9 - 11. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.L.DAVE and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA Date : 12/10/2011 ORAL ORDER
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA)
this Appeal, the appellants – original petitioners seek to
challenge the judgment and order dated 3rd December 2010
passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application
No.15416 of 2010, whereby the learned Single Judge rejected the
petition having found no substance.
relevant for the purpose of deciding the present Appeal can be
summarised as under :-
reveals that the respondents preferred a suit under the Mamlatdar’s
Court Act, which came to be registered as Mamlatdar’s Court Act Case
No.2 of 2009, claiming right of way through the land of the
appellants herein bearing Block No.314 for the purpose of ingress to
their land bearing Block No.310.
appears that the respondents also filed an application for interim
injunction. The appellants filed reply to the interim injunction
application preferred by the respondents and the Mamlatdar
considered the reply of the appellants to the interim injunction
application as final reply and passed order in Mamlatdar’s Court Act
Case No.2 of 2009, allowing the suit preferred by the respondents
and granting relief as prayed for by the respondents.
by the said judgment and order passed by the Mamlatdar, the
appellants herein preferred Revision Application No.4 of 2010 before
the Deputy Collector. The Deputy Collector rejected the Revision
Application No.4 of 2010, confirming the order passed by the
Mamlatdar. It is at that stage that the appellants – original
petitioners preferred Special Civil Application no.15416 of 2010.
the learned Single Judge the grievance voiced by the appellants was
that the Mamlatdar did not grant them an opportunity to file reply
and the Mamlatdar could not have considered the reply filed by the
appellants to the interim injunction application as final reply to
the suit preferred by the respondents.
contention did not weigh with the learned Single Judge, and to our
mind, very rightly, as there was no satisfactory reply at the end of
the appellants as to why the appellants were not able to file any
reply from 26th May 2009 to 25th September
that as it may, what is important in the present Appeal is as to
whether the same is maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters
Patent or not.
is evident from the pleadings and the relief as prayed for by the
appellants that the main petition was a petition under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India, invoking supervisory jurisdiction of the
High Court. No writ has been prayed for in the main petition.
this view of the matter, we hold that as the learned Single Judge
refused to grant any relief to the appellant in exercise of its
supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, this Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent would not be
Appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost.