Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/9936/2010 5/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9936 of 2010
=========================================================
UNION
OF INDIA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
RASILABEN
JATASHANKER BAROT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
NS SHEVADE for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR MEHUL S SHAH
for Respondent(s) : 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4,1.2.5
MR SURESH M
SHAH for Respondent(s) : 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4,1.2.5
NOTICE
SERVED for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
Date
: 25/11/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. Heard
learned advocate Mr.Shevade for the petitioner and learned advocate
Mr.Mehul Suresh Shah for the respondents.
2. It
is submitted by learned advocate Mr.Shevade for the petitioner that
different decrees were passed by the trial court. According to him
there is no provision in Civil Procedure Court to consolidate the
darkhast applications. He has placed reliance on the following
decisions:
(i)
Ganeshdas and anothers vs. Ramesh Chandra and another
reported in AIR 2002 Rajasthan 341.
(ii)
M/s.Anurag & Co. and another vs. Addl. District Judge and others
reported in AIR 2006 Rajasthan 119.
3.
It is an admitted fact that while deciding different land reference
cases preferred by different claimants, the Reference Court has
recorded evidence in one reference case and passed a common award in
respect of all different reference cases. It is also pertinent to
note that whenever the award is passed, the Court is duty bound to
draw bill of costs as per each reference. No decree is ever drawn
when award is passed by the Reference Court, and as per the provision
of Civil Procedure Code, bill of costs is only drawn when the award
is passed.
4.
Learned advocate for the claimants preferred an application before
the Executing Court for consolidating all the darkhast applications
as they are arising out of common award passed by the Reference
Court. The trial court, after giving an opportunity to both the
parties, passed the order consolidating all the darkhast
applications in view of the fact that the relief sought for in each
execution petition is also similar and the parties are also same.
There is no patent illegality or error of jurisdiction committed by
the trial court while consolidating all the darkhast applications.
Moreover, the aforesaid decisions relied upon by the learned
advocate for the petitioner are also not helpful to the case of the
petitioner as facts of those reported cases are totally different
from the facts of the present case. In view of the same, I do no
find any substance in the petition and hence the petition is
summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. Notice is
discharged.
(
M.D. SHAH, J. )
After
passing the aforesaid order, learned advocate for the petitioner
requested for stay of this order for a period of four weeks.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the request is
rejected.
(
M.D. SHAH, J. )
syed/
Top