Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CRA/70/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 70 of 2010
=========================================================
UMAKANT
SOMABHAI PATEL - Applicant(s)
Versus
PATEL
GANGARAM KASIDAS (HUSBAND OF DECE.) & 1 - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
PARTY-IN-PERSON
for Applicant(s) : 1,
None
for Opponent(s) : 1,
MR DIPEN S THAKKAR for Opponent(s) : 1.2.1,
1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.2.5,1.2.6 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
Date
: 13/08/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. Heard
the party-in-person and the learned Advocate Mr Dipen Thakkar for
the opponents at length. The present Revision Application is
directed against the order passed by learned 3rd
Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Mehsana dated 21.4.2010 below the
application preferred in Special Suit No.85 of 1996 for withdrawal of
the Fixed Deposit. The learned Judge, after considering the
submissions canvassed by both the sides, has observed in the order
that the First Appeal bearing No.3474 of 2009 is already preferred
before the Appellate Court and till the final decision is taken by
the Appellate Court, 1/8th share of the applicant as per
the directions given by the High Court is not required to be paid.
Even the Fixed Deposit is renewed from time to time and as the amount
is required to be paid at the conclusion of the Appeal, the
application was rejected.
2. The
party-in-person submitted that order was passed by the Hon’ble High
Court in Appeal from Order No.50/94 and considering the observations
made therein, the amount of Fixed Deposit is required to be paid to
him.
3. I
have considered the submissions canvassed by the party-in-person as
well as the learned Advocate for the opponents. The
affidavit-in-reply filed by the opponents controverting the averments
made in the Revision Application is also taken into consideration by
me. The Coordinate Bench of this court has passed the order dated
1.4.1995 in Appeal from Order No.50/94 wherein it has been observed
by the court as under:
It is understood that,
the appellant/defendant shall be at liberty to sell or dispose of the
above said 3 plots, subject to the condition that he shall deposit an
amount of equivalent to 1/8th share for each of the two
ladies in the court below. The said ladies shall be kept present at
the negotiations for the sale and at the time of the execution of the
sale deed. The amount to be deposited by the appellant-defendant
before the court below shall be invested by the court in two separate
Fixed Deposit accounts in the name of each of the two ladies. The
interest shall accumulate. The above said deposit and interest
amount shall be subject to the final outcome of the proceedings
before the court below. Ld. counsel Mr Jani makes a statement that,
the said two ladies shall cooperate in the negotiations and the
ultimate sale transactions in respect of the above said plots. The
statement is recorded. The orders of the court below shall stand
modified to the above said extent. Parties shall cooperate for th
earlyy disposal of the suit before the court below. No order as to
costs.
4. In
view of the aforesaid observations, the suit was tried by the learned
4th Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Mehsana and after the
conclusion of the suit proceedings, appeal is preferred and in the
meanwhile the party-in-person has preferred application for
withdrawal of the amount as per the directions given by the
Coordinate Bench of this court. Considering the fact that the Appeal
is already pending before the Appellate Court, in my view, the
learned Trial Judge has rightly rejected the application for the
withdrawal of the amount in the Fixed Deposit. There is no infirmity
in the order passed by the learned Trial Court.
5. In
view of the aforesaid, there is no merit in the Revision Application
and it is liable to be rejected.
For
the foregoing reasons, this Revision Application is rejected. Notice
is discharged.
[H.B.
ANTANI, J.]
msp
Top