Posted On by &filed under Gujarat High Court, High Court.


Gujarat High Court
Mansungbhai vs Dineshbhai on 12 October, 2011
Author: A.L.Dave, Mr.Justice J.B.Pardiwala,
  
 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

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA)

In
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.

Facts
relevant for the purpose of deciding the present Appeal can be
summarised as under :-

Record
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.

It
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.

Aggrieved
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.

Before
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.

This
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
2009.

Be
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.

It
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.

In
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
maintainable.

The
Appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost.

(A.L.Dave,
Actg.CJ.)

(J.B.Pardiwala,
J.)

/moin

   

Top


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

102 queries in 0.153 seconds.