Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/2031/2010 2/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 2031 of 2010
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13862 of 2009
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 9896 of 2010
In
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 2031 of 2010
=========================================================
SHANTILAL
JADAVJI JAGANI & 1 - Appellant(s)
Versus
RAJESHKUMAR
JAYANTILAL PATEL & 5 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
Ms
VIDHI J BHATT for MR JAYANT P BHATT
&.MR
JEET J BHATT for Appellants
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s)
: 1 - 3, 5,
NOTICE UNSERVED for Respondent(s) : 4,
6,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER 22nd November 2010
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA)
The
appellants, original respondents no. 1 & 2 to the writ
petition, were the original plaintiffs, have preferred this Appeal
against the Order dated 7th
April 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, the
proceedings in Regular Civil Suit No. 1491/1993 preferred by the
appellants has been stayed.
1.1
Inspite
of service of notice, the respondents have not appeared and not
disputed the facts as pleaded.
2.
The
appellants-original plaintiffs filed Application Exh.157
for impleading two persons as proposed defendants no. 5 & 6 to
the Suit. It was pleaded that the suit land, during pendency of the
suit, had been transferred in favour of the proposed defendants no. 5
& 6. Therefore, they were proper party and were required to be
impleaded as party defendants to the suit. The same having allowed,
the other defendants preferred writ
petition wherein the impugned
order of stay of the suit proceeding has been passed.
3.
Learned
counsel for the appellants would submit that already 17 years have
lapsed and taking advantage of delay, the defendants have sold the
suit land. If the suit is stayed and the matter lingers, more
complications may develop.
4.
We
have heard learned counsel for the appellants, perused the record and
agree with the submission that if the suit remains pending further,
it may complicate the case. For the said reason, we are of the view
that the learned Single Judge should decide the writ
petition, and decide the question whether the subsequent purchasers
ought to have been impleaded as the defendants to the suit or not.
For the said reason, we are not interfering with the interim
order. The writ petition
is remitted to the learned Single Judge for its decision on merit.
The case be given preference over other writ
petitions as the suit is pending
since long.
5.
Post
Special Civil Application No. 13862 of 2009 before the appropriate
Bench on 6th
December 2010 within
5 cases.
6.
Letters
Patent Appeal & Civil Application stand disposed of. No costs.
{S.J
Mukhopadhaya, CJ.}
{K.M
Thaker, J.}
prakash*
Top