Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
AO/78/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
APPEAL
FROM ORDER No. 78 of 2010
=====================================
UMESHKUMAR
RAMANLAL MODI - Appellant(s)
Versus
GUNVANTLAL
RAMNLAL MODI - Respondent(s)
=====================================
Appearance
:
MR DIPAK R DAVE for
Appellant(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) :
1,
=====================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 04/05/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1.0 Heard
learned advocate Mr. Dipak R. Dave for the appellant original
defendant. The learned advocate for the appellant vehemently
submitted that the Court below has committed an error in passing the
order qua room/s situated on the terrace of the first floor. He
submitted that so far as status quo qua ground floor being with the
plaintiff and first floor being with the appellant defendant,
there is not dispute but then the Court has stated that, In the
meanwhile, the plaintiff is at liberty to enjoy the possession of
ground floor and one room on western
side of terrace and the defendant is at liberty to enjoy
the possession of first floor and one room on eastern side
of terrace .
The learned advocate for the appellant submitted that there is only
one room. (emphasis
supplied)
2.0 If
that is so, the same should be pointed out to the learned Judge by
filing an application. At this juncture, the learned advocate for
the appellant submitted that a Review Application filed by the
plaintiff, is pending. That being so, it will be open for the
appellant defendant to file a Review Application and press before
the Court for appropriate orders on that.
2.1 At
the request of the learned advocate for the appellant it is clarified
that in the event a Review Application is filed by the defendant, the
same be heard with Review Application filed by the plaintiff and
decide the same in accordance with law after giving full opportunity
of hearing to both the parties, taking all the contentions available
to them and without being influenced by the order impugned.
3.0 In
light of these observations, the learned advocate for the appellant
seeks permission to withdraw this Appeal from Order. Permission is
granted. The appeal stands disposed of as withdrawn.
3.1 Direct
service is permitted.
[
Ravi R. Tripathi, J. ]
hiren
Top