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
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.
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:-
Sundar Puri v. State of U.P., AIR 1985 SC 472.
Tiwari v. Lalta Prasad Dubey, AIR 2002 SC 1504
Singh v. Dalbir Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 700.
v. Fatima A. Kindasa, AIR 1997 SC 2320.
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.
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.