Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
C/SCA/3734/2009
3
of 3
JUDGEMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION
No 3734 of 2009
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
=============================================
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 ?
=============================================
KANUBHAI
MOTIBHAI PATEL SINCE DECD. THRO.LEGAL HEIRS:- &
6….Petitioner(s)
Versus
KANUBHAI
HARKISHANBHAI BHATT….Respondent(s)
=============================================
Appearance:
MR
MANAN A SHAH as ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
UNSERVED-REFUSED
(N) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
MR
MEHUL H RATHOD as ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 13/06/2011
ORAL
JUDGEMENT
[1.0] By way of
this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
petitioner original defendant (now his heirs and legal
representatives) have prayed for an appropriate order to quash and
set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 07.07.2008 passed by
the learned Presiding Officer, 10th FTC, Vadodara
Appellate Court in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.120/2002 by which
the learned Appeallate Court has allowed the said Appeal preferred by
the respondent herein original plaintiff and has quashed and set
aside the order dated 30.07.2002 passed by the learned trial Court
below Exh.5 in Civil Suit No.496/1998.
[2.0] At the
outset it is required to be noted that initially the learned trial
Court granted the order of status-quo below Exh.5 in favour of the
original plaintiff in the year 1998 which came to be continued upto
30.07.2002 i.e. till the learned trial Court passed the order below
Exh.5 dismissing the same. It appears that even thereafter also, the
order of status-quo was continued by the learned Appellate Court till
the impugned order came to be passed and the said order of status-quo
has been continued till date.
[2.1] In view of
the above, more particularly, when the order of status-quo has been
continued since 1998, this Court is of the opinion that if the order
of status-quo which has been continued till date is directed to be
continued till the final disposal of the suit and the suit is
directed to be expedited and is ordered to be decided and disposed of
within stipulated time, it will meet the ends of justice, however,
the same shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of
the respective parties to the suit.
[3.0] In view of
the above and without further entering into the merits of the case
and/or expressing anything in favour of either parties, both the
parties are directed to maintain status-quo till final disposal of
the Civil Suit No.496/1998, however, the same shall be without
prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respective parties to
the suit and the learned trial Court to decide and dispose of the in
accordance with law and on merits and on the basis of the evidence
led and without in anyway being influenced by the present order of
status-quo and/or any observations made either by the learned trial
Court in its order passed below Exh.5 and/or Appellate Court and/or
even by this Court.
[4.0] In the
facts and circumstances of the case and as the suit is of the year
1998, learned trial Court is directed to decide and dispose of the
suit as expeditiously as possible but in any case not later than
30.12.2012 and all concerned are directed to cooperate the learned
trial Court in early disposal of the aforesaid suit.
[5.0] With this,
present Special Civil Application is disposed of.
(M.R.
Shah, J.)
*menon
Top