Chimanbhai Lallubhai Patel & 3 vs Dhansukhbhai Bhikhubhai ... on 2 March, 2016

[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Gujarat High Court

Chimanbhai Lallubhai Patel & 3 vs Dhansukhbhai Bhikhubhai ... on 2 March, 2016

Bench: R.D.Kothari

                  C/CRA/58/2016                                                  ORDER



                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                      CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 58 of 2016
                                                TO
                      CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 60 of 2016
         ==========================================================
                  CHIMANBHAI LALLUBHAI PATEL & 3....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus
                  DHANSUKHBHAI BHIKHUBHAI PATEL....Opponent(s)
         ==========================================================
         Appearance:
         MR JAL SOLI UNWALA, ADVOCATE FOR MS TEJAL A VASHI, ADVOCATE
         for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 4
         ==========================================================

          CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.D.KOTHARI

                                      Date : 02/03/2016


                                    COMMON ORAL ORDER

1. Leave to amend in Civil Revision Application No.60 of 2015 is granted.

2. Heard learned advocate for the applicants.

3. Applicants claim to be aggrieved by rejection of applications filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code by the defendants in the Regular Civil Suit Nos. 10 of 2014, 11 of 2014 and 12 of 2014 instituted by the plaintiff. In the said suits the plaintiff has inter alia prayed for a declaration that the plaintiff may be declared as owner by adverse possession of the suits property.

4. It may be stated that the plaintiff has also prayed that his possession may not be disturbed by the Page 1 of 3 HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Fri Mar 04 02:23:04 IST 2016 C/CRA/58/2016 ORDER defendants or anyone on behalf of the defendants.

5. The applications came to be rejected by the trial Court mainly on the ground that it is a matter of evidence and plaints cannot be rejected.

6. Learned advocate has drawn attention of this Court to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Gurudwara Sahib v. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala and Anr., reported in 2013(3) GLH 375. Attention of this Court has been drawn to Para 5, 7 and 9.

7. It would be relevant to mention that the defendants had moved two applications, one for framing preliminary issue and other for rejection of plaints. Common order passed by the trial Court rejecting both the applications.

8. On perusal of the order, it appears that there is no discussion about refusal to frame preliminary issue about maintainability of the suits.

9. Matters require consideration.

10. Notice, returnable on 1st April, 2016.

11. As to the interim relief, prima facie, so far as the relief of dispossession etc. is sought by the plaintiff in the plaints, the said relief requires consideration in the suits. It was submitted that who is in actual possession, is in dispute. Keeping that dispute alive, the applicants are hereby directed that opponent would not be removed by the applicants or Page 2 of 3 HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Fri Mar 04 02:23:04 IST 2016 C/CRA/58/2016 ORDER their agents etc. without following due process of law.

12. With above direction, interim relief in terms of Para 8(b) till the next date of hearing.

Direct service is permitted.

(R.D.KOTHARI, J.) BD Songara Page 3 of 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Fri Mar 04 02:23:04 IST 2016

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court