Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA/4139/2011 3/ 3 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4139 of 2011 ========================================================= PATEL SURESHBHAI ISHWARBHAI - Petitioner(s) Versus THAKOR RAMAJI HALUJI - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR AV PRAJAPATI for Petitioner(s) : 1, None for Respondent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 01/04/2011 ORAL ORDER
way of present petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgement
and order dated 15.02.2011 passed by the learned Principal District
Judge, Patan in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 24 of 2010 below Exh 7 and
also the judgement and order dated 26.07.2010 passed by the Principal
Civil Judge, Chansma below Exh. 5 in Regular Civil Suit No. 22 of
petitioner-original plaintiff has filed suit being Regular Civil Suit
No. 22 of 2009 before the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Chansama
for injunction and declaration with regard to land being Survey No.
792 situated at Village Sunsar, Taluka: Chansma. The learned
Principal Civil Judge vide order dated 26.07.2010 rejected the
application filed by the petitioner-original plaintiff below Exh. 5.
Against the order passed in Exh. 5 application, the
petitioner-original plaintiff has preferred Misc. Civil Appeal No. 24
of 2010 before the Court of Principal District Judge, Patan. The
learned Principal District Judge, Patan by his order dated 15.02.2011
rejected the Misc. Civil Appeal by confirming the order passed by the
learned Principal Civil Judge (J.D.), Chansma. Hence, this petition.
advocate for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is the
owner of the suit property and in the revenue record also, the name
of the petitioner is running. Therefore, both the Courts below ought
to have granted injunction pending the suit.
learned advocate for the petitioner. Looking to the documents
available on record the court below found that the petitioner has not
come with clean hands and has tried to take advantage of the court
proceedings. Proceedings were initiated earlier in respect of the
very same premises wherein interim relief was sought. But the said
suit was withdrawn unconditionally. Further, the petitioner has not
shown any priama facie case and even the balance of convenience is
not shown in favour of the petitioner. There are concurrent findings
of the Courts below. Even in the present case, the petitioner is not
in a position to point out anything from the record to show that if
the interim relief is not granted he would suffer irreparable loss.
There are no merits in the petition.
this stage learned advocate for the petitioner made a request to
expedite the suit within a period of one year which is declined. He
further insisted the Court to do so. The suit is of the year 2009. No
urgency is shown to give priority to the suit of the year 2009
especially when there are many old matters are pending before the
trial Court. Hence, request is rejected and the petition is dismissed
with costs quantified at Rs. 5000/-.