Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/12255/2009 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12255 of 2009
=============================================
PATEL
BHIKHABHAI MANCHHABHAI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
PATEL
SHANKARBHAI VENIDAS - Respondent(s)
=============================================
Appearance
:
MR ABHAYKUMAR P SHAH for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR
SIDDHARTH H DAVE for Respondent(s) :
1,
=============================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 20/07/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. This
petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is
filed against the interlocutory order dated 24.8.2009 passed by
learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Patan, by which, request of the petitioner to accept certain
documents in the proceedings, came to be rejected.
2. Learned
advocate for the petitioner submits that by Exh.42 list, the
petitioner had submitted relevant documents and certified copies of
such documents. Not only that but it was referred to in the
deposition of defendant at Exh.54 and, therefore, the same was to be
accepted. Besides, the order passed by the Court below is devoid of
reasonings and as per law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of
Bipin Shantilal Panchal vs. State of Gujarat [(2001) 3 SCC 1],
the court could have tentatively marked those documents and could
have considered at a later stage.
3. Learned
advocate for the respondent submits that above documents are not
relevant or important and the order passed by the trial court do not
deserve any interference by this Court.
4. Having
heard learned advocates for the parties, considering facts and
circumstances of the case, the order impugned passed by the learned
Additional Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Patan cannot be said to be contrary to law in any manner or resulting
into the grave injustice or gross failure of justice. The decision
of Bipin Shantilal Panchal vs. State of Gujarat (supra) relied
is not applicable in the facts of this case inasmuch as, the above
procedure as laid down by the Apex court is to be adopted in a case
were objection is raised by other party and only when court finds it
necessary to defer such objection so as to avoid delay in the
proceedings. In the facts of this case, the learned Judge has found
no substance in the application preferred by the petitioner and,
therefore, no interference is called for.
5. Mere
errors of fact or law as committed by the trial court not resulting
into grave injustice to the party, do not require any interference in
exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India.
6. Petition
is, therefore, rejected. Notice discharged. Interim relief stands
vacated.
[ANANT
S. DAVE, J.]
//smita//
Top