Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
AO/27920/2008 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
APPEAL
FROM ORDER No. 279 of 2008
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 10109 of 2008
In
APPEAL
FROM ORDER No. 279 of 2008
=========================================================
VARSHABEN
ARVINDBHAI SHAH - Appellant(s)
Versus
GULABCHAND
CHHAGANLAL SHAH DECEASED THRO HEIR & 3 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
PM LAKHANI for
Appellant(s) : 1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2,1.2.3 MR HARSHIT S TOLIA for
Appellant(s) : 1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2,1.2.3
None for Respondent(s) : 1,
1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.2.5, 1.2.6, 1.2.7, 1.2.8, 1.2.9,
1.2.10, 1.2.11, 3, 3.2.1, 3.2.2,3.2.3 - 4, 4.2.1, 4.2.2,4.2.3
-
for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 05/09/2008
ORAL
ORDER
Appellants
are the original plaintiffs. They have challenged an order dated
11.8.08 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot
below application Ex.5 in Regular Civil Suit No.82/02. By the said
order, the learned Judge was pleased to reject the application Ex.5
of the appellants.
The
appellants claim a plot of land out of survey No.461/3 paike of
Rajkot. The appellants claim that defendant No.1 partnership had
agreed to purchase the said plot by agreement dated 13.3.72 and had
paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- and remaining amount was to be paid within
one year.
While
turning down Ex.5 application, the learned Judge observed, inter
alia, that there is nothing on record to suggest that the remaining
sale price was paid over within time. It was also observed that
the plaintiffs claimed to be partners of defendant No.1 partnership
firm which had in all 16 partners and the partnership was engaged in
film distributorship whereas the land was agricultural land which
could not have been acquired by the partnership. It was further
observed that the land was in the name of Kiritkumar Kundalia and
Satishkumar Kundalia. Nothing is produced on record to show that
defendant No.1 is the owner thereof.
Considering
all these aspects of the matter, injunction prayed for by the
plaintiffs was turned down. I see no reason to interfere. The claim
of the appellants appears to be qua defendant No.1 partnership firm.
Learned advocate appearing for the appellants is not in a position
to show the sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.1. As
observed by the learned Judge, the land in question was at the
relevant time agricultural land. Partnership undisputedly was not
engaged in the business of agriculture. Learned Judge has also
observed that all partners were not agriculturists. Considering all
these aspects of the matter, I do not find that any case is made out
for interim injunction. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Civil
Application is also dismissed.
(Akil Kureshi, J.)
(vjn)
Top