Gujarat High Court
Ishwarlal vs Jayantbhai on 20 April, 2011
Author: Bhaskar Bhattacharya
Bench: Bhaskar Bhattacharya
ISHWARLAL KESHAVLAL PATELV/SJAYANTBHAI RAMANLAL TAILOR C/CA/3037/2013 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3037 of 2013 In FIRST APPEAL NO. 1303 of 2011 ========================================= ISHWARLAL KESHAVLAL PATEL & 2....Applicant(s) Versus JAYANTBHAI RAMANLAL TAILOR & 2....Respondent(s) ========================================= Appearance: MR AB MUNSHI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 3 MR BS KHATANA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA Date : 25/03/2013 ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA) By this application, the defendant-appellants of the Appeal, arising out of the suit for specific performance of a contract which has been decreed as prayed for, seeks permission to allow one Jay Kali Enterprise to organize a hand loom and handicraft fair with amusement rides etc. on the suit land for a temporary period between 10th April 2013 and 2nd June 2013, both days inclusive, subject to such terms and conditions as may be passed by this Court.
It appears that after suffering a decree for specific performance of contract, the appellants, who are defendant, have preferred the appeal and have obtained an order of injunction restraining the plaintiff-respondent from executing the decree passed by the learned trial Judge. However, while passing such interim order on 20th April 2011 a Division Bench of this Court also restrained the appellants from transferring, alienating or inducting any third party in any manner whatsoever in the property in question and also to maintain status quo of the property. It was further directed that the plaintiff will also not create any third party interest on the basis of the decree which is yet to be executed.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, we find that since the appeal is pending and the property is still in possession of the appellants it will not be proper to restrain the appellants from even permitting a hand loom and handicraft fair for a limited period of about two months. We, however, impose a condition that before allowing such a party to organize hand loom and handicraft fair, it will comply with all the necessary formalities required for permission from various statutory authorities such as Surat Municipal Corporation, Police Commissioner, Surat, Fire Brigade Department, Collector etc. and at the same time will undertake that after the hand loom and handicraft fair is over it will bring back the property in the same position as it exists today. It is needless to mention that this permission is only for a temporary period and earlier interim order is varied only to this extent. It is needless to mention that the appellants will be restrained from transferring, alienating or encumbering the property permanently as already been ordered by the earlier Division Bench. The appellants will also take an undertaking from the said Jay Kali Enterprise that they will hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the property in favour of the appellants immediately after 2nd June 2013 and will abide by this order of the Court. It is needless to mention that the appellants or the Jay Kali Enterprise will be entitled to take such steps which are necessary for conducting a fair on the suit land.
This application is, thus, disposed of with the above modification of earlier order dated 20th April 2011. Direct service is permitted.
(BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, CJ.) (J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) *malek Page 2 of 2