Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CA/11878/2009 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR STAY No. 11878 of 2009
In
FIRST
APPEAL No. 4225 of 2009
=========================================================
PATEL
MULJI DHANJI(DECD.) THROUGH PATEL LAXMIBAI MULJI & 9 -
Petitioner(s)
Versus
MANIBEN
JESHTHARAM RAJGOR (MOTA) & 6 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MEHUL S SHAH for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 10.MR SURESH M SHAH for Petitioner(s) : 1 -
10.
None for Respondent(s) : 1, 6,
MR MEHUL SHARAD SHAH for
Respondent(s) : 2,
MR NV ANJARIA for Respondent(s) : 3,
RULE
SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 4,
MR BY MANKAD for Respondent(s)
: 5,
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) :
7,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
Date
: 23/03/2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)
The
present application is for interim injunction pending the First
Appeal against the alienation of the suit property.
We
have heard the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides on the
aspects of interim order.
It
appears that as per the finding recorded by the trial Court and it
appears from the tenor of the plaint also that the plaintiff had
agreed for purchasing the share of Original Defendants No.1, 2, and
3 and for which he was seeking specific performance of agreement to
sell or in alternative, partition qua the shares of the original
defendants No.1, 2, and 3. Therefore, no injunction could operate
so far as the other co-shares of the properties are concerned.
Hence,
by interim order, it is directed that the original defendants No.1,
2, and 3 – opponents No.1, 2, and 3 herein shall maintain the
status qua the ownership right and title of the property, for which
the agreement was entered into in favour of the applicant –
appellant. It is clarified that the present order shall not operate
qua the other defendants, who have interest in the property and
whose shares were not agreed to be purchased or sold.
It
is also observed so far as the decree for direction of the refund of
the amount and the damages are concerned, pending the appeal, would
remain stayed.
The
application is disposed of accordingly.
(Jayant Patel, J.)
(H. B. Antani, J.)
vinod
Top