Posted On by &filed under Gujarat High Court, High Court.


Gujarat High Court
Shree vs State on 29 January, 2010
Author: Akil Kureshi,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCR.A/2260/2009	 1/ 3	JUDGMENT 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 2260 of 2009
 

 
 
For
Approval and Signature:  
 
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
 
 
=========================================================

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

1
		
		 
			 

Whether
			Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
		
	

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

2
		
		 
			 

To be
			referred to the Reporter or not ?
		
	

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

3
		
		 
			 

Whether
			their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
		
	

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

4
		
		 
			 

Whether
			this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
			interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
			made thereunder ?
		
	

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

5
		
		 
			 

Whether
			it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
		
	

 

 
=========================================================

 

SHREE
KUNTHUSAGAR OWNERS' ASSOCIATION & 1 - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MS
SHIVANI RAJPUROHIT for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 2. 
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) :
1, 
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 2, 
MR MB GANDHI for
Respondent(s) : 2, 
MS TANHA N PARIKH for Respondent(s) : 2, 
MR
CHINMAY M GANDHI for Respondent(s) :
2, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 29/01/2010 

 

 
ORAL
JUDGMENT

Petitioners
have prayed for stay of proceedings of Chapter Case No.1 of 2009 and
8251 of 2009. The prayer is sought to be sustained primarily on the
ground that on the same subject matter land, civil suit is filed by
the petitioners which is pending.

Learned
advocate for the petitioner submitted that the suit has been
instituted by the petitioners in which interim injunction is also
granted. In that view of the matter, Chapter Case should not be
permitted to proceed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied
on following decision of the Apex Court:-

Ram
Sundar Puri v. State of U.P., AIR 1985 SC 472.

Amresh
Tiwari v. Lalta Prasad Dubey, AIR
2002 SC 1504

Ranbir
Singh v. Dalbir Singh,
(2002) 3 SCC 700.

R.C.Patuck
v. Fatima A. Kindasa, AIR
1997 SC 2320.

On
the other hand, learned counsel Mr.Gandhi appearing for respondent
No.2 pointed out that the chapter case is not lodged against the
present petitioners and even the properties involved in the chapter
case as well as in the civil suit are not identical. He submitted
that unauthorized entry and trespassing is sought to be prevented
through the chapter case and the cases are at the stage of final
arguments at which stage, the petitioner has approached this Court
and obtained stay.

Having
heard the learned advocates for the parties and having perused the
material on record, I find that the chapter cases lodged by
respondent No.2 are not against the present petitioners. Even the
description of property in the chapter case as well as in the civil
suit are not identical. Considering all these aspects of the matter,
it is not necessary to await the outcome of the civil suit before
the chapter case can be concluded. The petition is therefore
dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief is vacated.

(Akil
Kureshi, J.)

(vjn)

   

Top


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

24 queries in 0.163 seconds.