Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/345/2011 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 345 of 2011
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13796 of 2010
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 2437 of 2011
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 345 of 2011
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
=========================================================
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 ?
=========================================================
VIKRAMSINH
NATHUBHA ZALA & 3 - Appellant(s)
Versus
SATWARA
NARSHIBHAI DEVRAJBHAI NAKUM - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
BS PATEL for
Appellant(s) : 1 - 4.
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR
SP MAJMUDAR for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR PP MAJMUDAR for
Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date
: 6/9/2011
CAV
JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B PARDIWALA)
This
appeal arises from judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge
dated 19.10.2010 in SCA No. 13796 of 2010, whereby learned Single
Judge refused to grant any relief to the appellants – original
respondents and disposed of SCA No. 13796 of 2010 by making certain
observations and clarifications and confirmed order dated 1.10.2010
passed by the learned Civil Judge below Ex.17 in Special Civil Suit
No. 90 of 2010.
2. It
appears that the respondent herein – original plaintiff of Special
Civil Suit No. 90 of 2010 challenged the order dated 1.10.2010 passed
by Additional Senior Civil Judge, Morbi below Exh.17 in Special Civil
Suit No. 90 of 2010, whereby the learned Civil Judge directed that a
panchnama of the disputed property be drawn. It also appears that
before SCA No. 13796 of 2010 could be preferred, panchnama was
already drawn by the Court Commissioner appointed for the purpose of
drawing the panchnama and therefore, learned Single Judge disposed of
the petition by observing that the Civil Court would consider the
legality and maintainability of the panchnama while considering the
evidence at the time of deciding the Civil Suit.
3. It
is evident from the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge
that nothing has been observed against the appellants herein, which
can be said to be prejudicial to their interest.
4. We
are of the view that learned Single Judge while confirming the order
passed by the learned Civil Judge, which was the subject matter of
challenge, made certain suitable observations and disposed of the
petition.
5. We
do not see any reason to interfere with the said judgment and order
passed by the learned Single Judge dated 19.10.2010 in SCA No. 13796
of 2010. In this view of the matter, we dismiss the appeal with no
order as to costs. CA stands disposed of.
(S.J.
Mukhopadhaya, C.J.)
(J.B.
Pardiwala, J.)
*/Mohandas
Top