Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/9480/2011 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9480 of 2011
=========================================
SAVITRIBEN
RAJENDRAKUMAR JOSHI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
SHANTABEN
MAFATBHAI PATEL & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
PM LAKHANI for Petitioner(s) : 1,MRS RP LAKHANI for Petitioner(s) :
1,MR RH RUPARELIYA for Petitioner(s) : 1,MR. MANOJ T DANAK for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR NP CHAUDHARY for Respondent(s) :
1,
MRTUSHARCHAUDHARY for Respondent(s) : 1,
None for
Respondent(s) : 2,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
Date
: 01/08/2011
ORAL
ORDER
The
present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226
/ 227 of the Constitution of India and also under Order 43 Rule 11
of the Civil Procedure Code as well as under the provisions of
Specific Relief Act for the prayer that the appropriate writ, order
or direction may be issued quashing and setting the impugned order
passed in Regular Civil Suit No.219 of 2005 by the learned Principal
Senior Civil Judge, Palanpur and also the order passed by the
learned Principal District Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur in Civil
Misc. Appeal No.76 of 2006 dated 8.12.2006 confirming the order
passed below Application (Exh.5) by the learned Principal Senior
Civil Judge, Palanpur, on the grounds stated in the petition.
Heard
learned Advocate Mr. P.M.Lakhani for the Petitioner and learned
Advocate Mr. N.P.Chaudhary who appears on caveat on behalf of
Respondent No.1.
Learned
Advocate Mr. Chaudhary has referred to and relied upon the judgment
of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Kashi Math Samsthan v.
Srimad Sudhindra Thirtha Swamy,
reported in AIR 2010 SC 296.
Having
considered the submissions with regard to the possession to which
the learned Advocate Mr. Lakhani has referred from the documents,
prima facie, the possession appears to be with the Petitioner.
There is also a claim made by the Respondents with regard to the
payment of Rs.28 lacs by installments, for which there is no
evidence produced as could be seen from the paper book produced by
learned Advocate Mr. Chaudhary. Hence, the following order is
passed.
RULE.
Interim relief in terms of paragraph 8(B) till further orders.
However,
it will be open for the parties to move the trial Court for
expediting the hearing of the Suit. Director service is permitted.
(Rajesh H.
Shukla,J)
Jayanti*
Top