Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/931/2011 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 931 of 2011
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3930 of 2011
To
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 932 of 2011
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No.
13066 of 2010
=========================================================
PATEL
SULOCHANABEN D/O SAKALCHAND JETHALAL AND W/O RAMESH & 1 -
Appellant(s)
Versus
ALPABEN
D/O ISHWARBHAI ATMARAM PATEL AND W/O KETANBHAI & 3 -
Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
SHITAL R PATEL for
Appellant(s) : 1 - 2.
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
4.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date
: 13/07/2011
ORAL ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA)
1. Common
judgment and order dated 29.4.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge
in Special Civil Application Nos. 13066 of 2010 and 3930 of 2011 is
the subject matter of challenge in these appeals.
2. The
appellant-original petitioner challenged the order dated 6th
September, 2010 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Gandhinagar below exh. 336 in Special Civil Suit No. 100 of 2001,
whereby the learned Civil Judge ordered to recast issue no.3 in the
main suit. Simultaneously, the learned Civil Judge, passed order on
the same day below exh. 176 in another suit, i.e., Special Civil Suit
No. 49 of 2003 directing to delete issue no.2[3] in the suit.
3. On
plain reading of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, it is
apparent that both the orders before the learned Single Judge were
interlocutory orders arising from the suit proceedings and the
learned Single Judge, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under
Art. 227 of the Constitution refused to grant any relief and
confirmed the order passed by the learned Civil Judge.
4. In
this view of the matter, we are of the view that both these appeals
preferred under Clause-15 of the Letters Patent are not maintainable.
Both the appeals are, therefore, dismissed.
[S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA,
CJ.]
[J.B.
PARDIWALA, J.]
pirzada/-
Top