Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CA/13661/2008 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR ORDERS No. 13661 of 2008
In
SECOND
APPEAL No. 77 of 2008
=========================================================
VINODKUMAR
MOHANLAL PAGI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
KAMLESHBHAI
MOHANBHAI PAGI & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MS
SNEHA A JOSHI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR NIRAL R MEHTA
for Respondent(s) : 1.2.1, 1.2.2,1.2.3 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
Date
: 16/08/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
learned advocates for both the sides.
Rule.
Mr Niral R Mehta, learned advocate waives service of rule on behalf
of opponents. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case, the application is taken up for hearing.
This
is an application preferred by the applicant-original
plaintiff-respondent, for restoration of possession.
It
is stated in the application, more particularly in para-6.A of the
application that Second Appeal was preferred on 8.2.2008 within time
limit. During pendency of the aforesaid appeal, legal notice was
served on the applicant on 27th February 2008 by the
respondent to vacate the premises wherein, the applicant was staying
with his family. It is further submitted that the Second Appeal came
up for hearing before the co-ordinate Bench of this Court on
9.7.2008. After considering the submissions canvassed by the learned
advocate, the Court was pleased to admit the appeal and formulated
substantial questions of law. In Civil Application No. 3898 of 2008,
rule was issued making it returnable on 6th August 2008
and ad-interim relief in terms of para-5[C] was granted. Thus,
considering the averments made in para-6.A of the application, on the
date when the Second Appeal came up for hearing and the order was
passed on the Civil Application, possession of premises of the
applicant was taken away by the respondent-defendant. In view of the
above, possession cannot be restored as on today. Learned advocate,
in the alternative submitted that the Second Appeal be fixed for
early hearing and the matter can be thrashed out at the time of final
hearing. However, considering the pendency of old Appeals, this
request cannot be acceded to.
For
the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the application and the
same is rejected. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
[H.B.
ANTANI, J.]
pirzada/-
Top