IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No 27 of 1997
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.S.PARIKH
============================================================
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgements?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgement?
4. Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge?
————————————————————–
ABDULKADAR J MEMON
Versus
ABDULSATAR A MEMON
————————————————————–
Appearance:
MR PK JANI for Petitioner
MR DJ BHATT for Respondents
————————————————————–
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE M.S.PARIKH
Date of decision: 08/04/97
ORAL JUDGEMENT
Rule. Service of Rule waived by Mr.D.J.Bhatt,
learned Advocate on behalf of respondents.
2.After some amount of submissions the learned
Advocates have consented for remanding the matter to the
trial Court for deciding the Injunction Application Ex.5
on merits after the parties are permitted to file their
respective Affidavits. Following order is, therefore,
passed :
The impugned orders passed by the trial Court as
also the Appellate Court will stand set aside and the
matter is hereby remanded to the trial Court to decide
Injunction Application Ex.5 strictly on merits and after
considering the material as also the Affidavits placed on
record. The trial Court shall, in the first instance,
give opportunity to both the parties to file their
respective Affidavits. It is made clear that the trial
Court’s order directing the plaintiff to file Affidavit
of defendant No.3 shall stand set aside as it would be
obvious that the plaintiff cannot file Affidavit of
defendant No.3, the alleged landlord. It will, however,
be open to the defendant No.3 to file his own Affidavit
either voluntarily or in support of any of the parties.
It is also made clear that it will be open to the
respondents to deal with the alleged documents and state
that they are fabricated. It will also be open to the
respondent to take appropriate steps in case it is held
that the documents produced by the plaintiff are
fabricated. The trial Court shall decide the Injunction
Application as expeditiously as possible as stated above.
Rule made absolute only in the aforesaid terms
with no order as to costs.
* * * * *