Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
AO/254/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
APPEAL
FROM ORDER NO.254 OF 2010
WITH
CIVIL
APPLICATION NO.8770 OF 2010
Madhubhai
Gordhanbhai Lathiya
vs
Arvindbhai
Ravjibhai Donga
======================================
Appearance :
Mr.
Kirit C. Trivedi for the
appellant
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 5/08/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1 Challenge
in this appeal is to the order dated 19th
July 2010 passed by the learned City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, by which
notice of motion Exh.6/7 in Civil Suit No.1190 of 2010 filed by the
appellant [original plaintiff] came to be rejected.
2 It
is the case of the plaintiff that a suit was filed for a declaration
that he had 50% share in the suit land and the defendants would not
carry out any construction thereon nor shall transfer, assign or
change situation. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property
and other properties were purchased by the defendants and others by
registered sale deed in the year 2004 and the plaintiff paid Rs.10
lakhs in view of the good relation with the defendants. Later on, the
defendants had signed agreement dated 7.1.2010 in which the above
fact of payment of Rs.10 lakhs was admitted. In the context of the
above facts, the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that
the admission of the defendants itself is sufficient to grant interim
injunction and another co-owner had also filed an affidavit about
payment of Rs.10 lakhs. In view of the above, it is stated that the
interim injunction ought to have been granted by the trial court. It
is further submitted that the defendants had not raised any dispute
about the agreement in question and, considering the above,
prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss is in
favour of the appellant-plaintiff and the trial court has erred in
refusing the injunction.
3. Heard
the learned advocate for the appellant and perused the record.
4 Perusal
of the impugned order reveals that no documentary evidence was
produced about payment of Rs.10 lakhs by the appellant to the
defendants in the year 2004. Besides, the registered sale deed of
2004 had a recital of consideration of Rs.2,10,000/- only. Even the
ownership and possessory documents were also in favour of the
defendants. Till the notice of motion was decided, the plaintiff had
not produced the original partnership deed which was entered into
between the parties.
5 The
above reasoning and finding of the trial court to deny interim
injunction in favour of the plaintiff cannot be said to be in any
manner illegal, perverse or contrary to law, which deserves any
interference.
6 This
appeal is rejected summarily. Civil Application stands disposed of.
(ANANT
S. DAVE, J.)
(swamy)
Top