Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CRA/792/2000 5/ 5 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 792 of 2000
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
NARENDRA
KALIDAS SHAH - Applicant(s)
Versus
HANSABEN
NARANDAS MAHANT.DECD.THR.HEIRS-RESPNT NO.3. & 2 - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MC BHATT for
Applicant(s) : 1,
None for Opponent(s) : 1 - 2.
MR NK MAJMUDAR
for Opponent(s) : 2.2.1, 2.2.2,2.2.3 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 04/05/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
Present
Civil Revision
Application under sec.115 of the Code
of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the petitioner
herein original appellant/defendant to quash and
set aside the impugned order dtd.27/6/2000 passed by the learned
Joint District Judge, Vadodara below Ex.21 in Regular
Civil Appeal No. 135 of 1985.
Against
the judgement and decree of eviction passed by the learned trial
court, the petitioner
herein original defendant has preferred Regular
Civil Appeal No. 135 of 1985 before the District Court,
Vadodara. After a period of almost 12 years from the date of
preferring the appeal, the petitioner
herein original appellant submitted an
application below Ex.21 under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code
of Civil Procedure permitting the petitioner
to produce subsequent notice issued by one of the
plaintiffs claiming rent exclusively by him from the tenant. The
said application came to be rejected by the appellate court by the
impugned order dtd.27/6/2000, hence the petitioner
has preferred the present Civil
Revision Application under sec.115 of the Code
of Civil Procedure.
Heard
Mr.Jigar Raval, learned
advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and considered the
reasoning given by the learned appellate court in para 6 of the
impugned order, which reads as under:-
[6]. I
am of the opinion after hearing arguments of both the parties that it
is true that appellant or respondent may be permitted to lead
evidence in appellate stage also if there is a substantial cause and
if the document is necessary to adjudicate the real dispute between
the parties. So far law is concerned, it is admitted facts that any
party is entitled to lead the evidence at appellate stage. But in
this appeal this Yogendraprasad
Narayandas Mahant, Pushpaben Yogendraprasad Mahant, minor Vimalkumar
Yogendrakumar, minor Ragvendraprasad Yogendraprasad Mahant, residing
at Laheripura, Ramgalola Mandir, Vadodara issued a notice to the
appellant and asked to pay the rent to them. But on other side it is
admitted facts that there is a dispute amongst the respondents. So
notice is issued to the appellant but thereafter there is a
compromise amongst the respondents and also they informed to the
relevant parties regarding the compromise made in their family and in
original suit trial court relied upon the Will Exh.127 and the trial
court also passed its judgment on suit notice and decided issue No.5
in favour of the respondents and that notice is produced in the trial
court at Exh.16 and the trial court also not believed the contentions
of Exh.16 a suit notice and the same facts reveal in this notice.
Therefore, I am of the opinion that it is not necessary to permit
the appellant to produce that notice on record and to lead the
evidence regarding the contentions of the notice. So there is no
substance in submissions made by the appellant or his learned
advocate Shri J.H. Mehta. So I do not permit the appellant to produce
the notice on record and to lead the evidence.
Having
heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and considering the
reasoning given by the learned appellate court in para 6 as
reproduced hereinabove, it cannot be said that the appellate court
has committed any
error in rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner for
producing additional evidence, which calls for interference of this
Court in exercise of powers under sec.115 of the Code
of Civil Procedure
It
is to be noted that even the Civil Appeal is of the year 1985 and
still pending for final hearing before the appellate court because
of the pendency of the present Civil
Revision Application before this Court even after a period of
25 years. Be that it may, as stated above, the impugned order cannot
be said to be illegal and/or without jurisdiction which calls for
interference of this Court.
In
view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present Civil
Revision Application deserves to be dismissed and is
accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief granted
earlier, if any, stands vacated forthwith.
Considering
the fact the Regular
Civil Appeal is of the year 1985, the learned appellate court
is hereby directed to decide and dispose of the Regular
Civil Appeal No. 135 of 1985 at the earliest but not later
than 31/12/2010. The learned Principal District Judge, Vadodara is
hereby directed to see that the said appeal is decided and disposed
by the learned appellate court at the earliest but not later than
31/12/2010, failing which appropriate proceedings shall be
initiated. All the concerned are directed to co-operate the learned
appellate court in early disposal of the aforesaid appeal and within
stipulated time stated hereinabove. Registry is directed to
send writ of this order to the learned Principal District Judge,
Vadodara and return the R & P to the appellate Court, at the
earliest but not later than 11/5/2010.
[M.R.
SHAH, J.]
rafik
Top