Gujarat High Court
Jayantibhai Ramdas Patel vs Prekash S/O Rakesh Mahendrakumar ... on 30 June, 2017
Author: A.G.Uraizee
Bench: A.G.Uraizee
C/SCA/15178/2010 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15178 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed No
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of No
the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of No
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
India or any order made thereunder ?
================================================================
JAYANTIBHAI RAMDAS PATEL....Petitioner(s)
Versus
PREKASH S/O RAKESH MAHENDRAKUMAR DESAI(MINOR) THROUGH PRAGAT &
23....Respondent(s)
==============================================================================
Appearance:
JANAK S RAJPUROHIT, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR RASHESH SANJANWALA, SR ADVOCATE with SHIVANI RAJPUROHIT, ADVOCATE for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 3 - 5
HL PATEL ADVOCATES, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 6 - 7
MR AR MAJMUDAR, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 11
MR ASIM J PANDYA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR UDAYAN P VYAS, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 8 - 10
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2 - 24
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE
Date : 30/06/2017
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner has preferred the petition for writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash and set aside the order passed below Exhibit-105 Page 1 of 21 HC-NIC Page 1 of 21 Created On Mon Aug 14 05:26:06 IST 2017 C/SCA/15178/2010 JUDGMENT dated 19.06.2009, Exhibit-146 dated 23.11.2009 and Exhibit-172 dated 4.01.2010 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara in Special Civil Suit No.516 of 2008 as being arbitrarily illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
2. The background facts which can be gathered from the pleadings are that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein preferred the Special Civil Suit No.516 of 2008 for a declaration against the present petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 to 24 inter alia contending that the suit land bearing Tikka No.27 of 2015 city survey No.1/A/B admeasuring about 1,28,713 sq. mtr. of ward No.B of city of Vadodara was the copassner property which is acquired by the State of Gujarat under the Land Acquisition Act wherein they have having 18.50% share, and accordingly, they are entitled to receive share in the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer.
3. Respondent No.1 and 2 original plaintiff preferred Ex.105 requiring petitioner-original defendant no.1 to produce the original copy of the Will dated 22.08.1995. The trial Court passed order dated 19.06.2009 to produce the original copy of Will.
4. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred Application Exhibit-172 on 18.12.2009, stating on oath that the Page 2 of 21 HC-NIC Page 2 of 21 Created On Mon Aug 14 05:26:06 IST 2017 C/SCA/15178/2010 JUDGMENT petitioner does not have original Will in its custody, and hence, is unable to produce the same.
5. The trial Court allowed the respondents application at Exhibit-146 by Judgment and order dated 23.11.2009 and rejected the petitioner's application at Exhibit-172 challenging the Judgment and order below Exhibit-105 by Judgment and order dated 4.1.2010.
6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order below Exhibit-105, Exhibit-146 and Exhibit-172, the petitioner begs to challenge the impugned order dated 12.03.2009, 23.11.2009 and 4.1.2010 before this Honourable Court for appropriate order.
7. Heard Mr. Rashesh Sanjanwala, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Shivani Rajpurohit, learned advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashim Pandya, learned advocate for the respondent No.3, Mr. D.C. Dave, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. H.L. Patel, learned advocate for respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and Mr. Udayan P. Vyas, learned advocate for the respondent No.8.
8. A preliminary objections as regards the maintainability of the petition is raised by the learned counsels appearing for the respondents. It is urged on behalf of the respondents that challenging the order Page 3 of 21 HC-NIC Page 3 of 21 Created On Mon Aug 14 05:26:06 IST 2017 C/SCA/15178/2010 JUDGMENT dated 19.06.2009 passed below Exhibit-5 and order dated 04.01.2010 passed below Exhibit-172 would not made the present petition maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is the submission that the petitioner ought to have challenged order dated 23.11.2009 passed below Exhibit-146 whereby the defence of the petitioner is struck of by preferring remedy as provided under Order 43 of CPC.
9. It is further submitted that allowing the petitioner to challenge order below Exhibit-146 along-with other subsequent orders would tantamount to permitting the petitioner to invoke the remedy which is otherwise barred by law of limitation. It is further submitted that there is no absolute proposition of law that once the petition is admitted, the same cannot be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy which is statutory efficacious and adequate. It is, therefore, urged that the petition may be dismissed on the sole ground of maintainability alone. In support of this submission reliance is placed that the judgment dated 28th June, 2016 passed by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No.2128 of 2016 and other allied petitions in the matter of Bhesavahi Group Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited v/s State of Gujarat relying upon para 38 of State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr v/s Uttar Pradesh Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam Page 4 of 21 HC-NIC Page 4 of 21 Created On Mon Aug 14 05:26:06 IST 2017 C/SCA/15178/2010 JUDGMENT Sangharsh Samiti and Ors. (2008) 12 SCC 675.
10. Mr. Sanjanwala, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, submits that the rule of exclusion of jurisdiction on the ground of availability of of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not of compulsion. In view of catena of decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Court, the jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India can be exercised inspite of availability of alternative remedy (i) where the petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights, (ii) where there is a failure of principle of natural justice or (iii) where the orders or the proceedings rule without jurisdiction or the vires of an act is challenged. It is further urged that under preliminary objections was raised about the maintainability the present petition at the time of admission and now the Court having posted the petition for final hearing, the petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy. In support of this submission reliance is placed on the following decisions:-
(1) Durga Enterprises (P) Limited and another v.
Principal Secretary, Government of U.P. and others, (2004) 12 SCC 665;
(2) Tata Chemicals Limited v. Adityana Nagar Panchayat, 2001 (2) GLR 1538;
(3) K.S. Joy v. Indian Institute of Management and Page 5 of 21 HC-NIC Page 5 of 21 Created On Mon Aug 14 05:26:06 IST 2017 C/SCA/15178/2010 JUDGMENT others, 1994 (1) GLR 57;
(4) Bhavabhai Bhadabhai Maru v. Dhandhuka Nagar Panchayat, 1991 (2) GLR 1339;
(5) State of Uttar Pradesh and another v. Uttar Pradesh Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam Sangharsh Samiti and others, (2008) 12 SCC 675;
(6) Ram and Shyam Company v. State of Haryana and others, (1985) 3 SCC 267;
(7) Harbans Lal Sahnia & Anr v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors., AIR 1971 SC 870.
11. It is, therefore, urged that the petition cannot be dismissed on the technical ground of maintainability.
12. Mr. Sanjanwala, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has assailed the orders passed by the trial Court in written submission as under:-
"19. There is an error apparent in granting the said application by exercising powers conferred by Order XI, Rule 14. The trial Court has not considered and dealt with the reply of the petitioner below Exh.110 wherein it was clearly pointed out that the probate stands restored and the will is no longer a relevant document. The trial Court has failed to appreciate that during the operation of the probate of the will, by virtue of Section 227 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, the validity of the Will cannot be questioned. The application Page 6 of 21 HC-NIC Page 6 of 21 Created On Mon Aug 14 05:26:06 IST 2017 C/SCA/15178/2010 JUDGMENT below Exh. 105 merely asserts that a Will is a relevant document, but does not spell out the reasons for production of the Will at that stage of the suit. The trial Court also without considering the relevant of the Will in context of the prayers in the suit and the need to direct production at that stage of the suit, merely in view of issue Nos. 5 and 6 directed production of the Will. The said order is thus clearly erroneous, has been passed without appreciating the relevant facts, passed in an application asserting incorrect facts and passed without assigning valid and germane reasons for directing production thereof. Moreover, even the respondents have fairly conceited before this Honourable Court was order passed below Exhibit 105 dated 19.06.2009 cannot be challenged under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and in that eventuality, the petitioner who is aggrieved by passing of the said order cannot be left remediless, in the interest of justice.
20. The production of the Will was directed by exercising powers conferred by Order XI, Page 7 of 21 HC-NIC Page 7 of 21 Created On Mon Aug 14 05:26:06 IST 2017 C/SCA/15178/2010 JUDGMENT Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 at three places order below Exh. 105, the Trial Court has clearly spelt out the provision under which the direction has been issued. The second application below Exh. 146 was admittedly filed under Order XI, Rule 21. Order XI, Rule 21 confers the power upon the Trial Court to strike off defence only in cases where orders are issued under Order XI, Rule 11, 12 or 18. It is settled legal position that for non- production of a document ordered to be produced in exercise of powers by Order XI, Rule 14, an order striking off the defence under Order XI, Rule 21 cannot be passed as no such power is conferred by Rule 21. In support of this submission, reliance is placed on the following decisions:-
(i) M/s. Gur Prasad Shyam Babu and others v. State Bank of India and another, AIR 1994 Allahabad 151.
(ii) Chinnappan v. Ramchandran, AIR 1989 Madras 314 (1).
(iii) R. Ganga Reddy v. P. Raghunatha Reddy, AIR 1978 Andhra Pradesh 457.
(iv) Shri Baba Shiva Sambhu and another v. Raj Mohan Page 8 of 21 HC-NIC Page 8 of 21 Created On Mon Aug 14 05:26:06 IST 2017 C/SCA/15178/2010 JUDGMENT Deb Nath and others, AIR 1966 Tripura 16.
(v) Koduri Krishnarao v. State of Andhra Pradesh represented by Secy. To the Govt. (Public Works Dept.) Hydedrabad, AIR 1962 Andhra Pradesh 249.
(vi) Amarsingh v. Chatrubhuj and others, AIR 1957 Rajasthan 367.
21. Even otherwise, when it was evident from the record that the petitioner does not have the will in hi possession, no order striking off the defense could have been passed. The trial court has failed to record satisfaction that the declarations made by the petitioner on oath are incorrect and that the petitioner is deliberately and willfully not producing the Will inspite of having the possession thereof. By the time the impugned second order below Exh. 146 was passed, the stand of the petitioner before the Trial Court clearly was that the petitioner does not have the Will. The said stand of the petitioner is now clearly established and vindicated by the subsequent development where under respondent No.8 has sought leave to produce the original Will declaring that the same is in his custody and further declaring that from 2001 to 2016, the will was in the possession Page 9 of 21 HC-NIC Page 9 of 21 Created On Mon Aug 14 05:26:06 IST 2017 C/SCA/15178/2010 JUDGMENT of Shri Champalal Jayvantrai Seth, the subsequent development clearly establishes the correctness of the stand taken by the petitioner before the Trial Court and the illegality of the impugned orders.
22. There is an error apparent in rejecting the application made by the petitioner under Exhibit 172, filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, specifically contenting that the defense of the petitioner cannot be struck of in the fact of circumstances wherein there is no willful default on the part of the petitioner as the will is not in his possession. Even the respondents have fairly conceited before this Honourable Court that the order passed below Exhibit 172 dated 18.12.2009 cannot be challenged under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, therefore, in that eventuality, the petitioner who is aggrieved by passing of the said order cannot be left remediless, in the interest of justice.
13. Mr. Asim Pandya, learned advocate for the respondent No.1 submits that the petitioner is consistently taking contradictory stands in the different Page 10 of 21 HC-NIC Page 10 of 21 Created On Mon Aug 14 05:26:06 IST 2017 C/SCA/15178/2010 JUDGMENT proceedings before the different courts about the possession and custody of Will of Shri Mahendra P. Desai. The petitioner has deliberately and consciously chosen not to produce the Will of Shri Mahendra P. Desai even though the Rojkam of the probate court clearly shows that the Will had been handed over to the petitioner in the year 2001. In response to Exhibit-105 application the petitioner admits that he had already obtained the Will from the court, but, there is no requirement of its production in the present proceedings. Now by additional affidavit to bring subsequent development on record the petitioner is coming out with a case that the original Will was lost or stolen, and hence, it could not be produced. This stand of the petitioner is not believable since if the Will was stolen actually at the time of deciding application Exhibit-105 and Exhibit-146 he would have stated such facts on affidavit and he would have also filed a police complaint. The petitioner who had not trusted the probate court which is supposed to preserve the original Will with court and taken away the original Will by manipulation cannot be believed to be so careless not to know the whereabouts of the Will or not to take appropriate proceeding if the Will was lost at the relevant point of time. Please refer to s. 294 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 reproduced hereinunder:
Page 11 of 21HC-NIC Page 11 of 21 Created On Mon Aug 14 05:26:06 IST 2017 C/SCA/15178/2010 JUDGMENT S.294 Filing of original wills of fwhich probate or administration with will annexed granted.
(1) Every District Judge, or District Delegate, shall file and preserve all original wills, of which probate or letters of administration with the will annexed may be granted by him, among the records of his Court, until some public registry for wills is established.
(2) The State Government shall make regulations for the preservation and inspection of the wills so filed.
14. The petitioner has made false declarations/statements on oath in the judicial proceedings before various courts on the issue of the possession/custody of the Will of Shri Mahendra P. Desai, and hence, appropriate criminal proceeding for perjury is required to be initiated against him.
15. Mr. Udayan P. Vyas, learned advocate for the respondent No.8 in his written arguments has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court in striking out defence of the petitioner under Order 11, Rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 inter alia on the ground that the petitioner has failed to produce alleged Will of the deceased late Shri Mahendrakumar P. Desai on the record of the case does not suffer from any error apparent of the fact of the record. Upon careful scrutiny of the scheme of Order 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, it is clear that different stages of evidence to be adduced in a Suit have been arranged in the chronological order first Page 12 of 21 HC-NIC Page 12 of 21 Created On Mon Aug 14 05:26:06 IST 2017 C/SCA/15178/2010 JUDGMENT among them being an order of interrogation followed by an order of discovery and followed by an order of inspection ending with an order of production. It is, therefore, misconceived to construe that an order for striking out defence under Order 11, Rule 21 can be passed only when there is an order of interrogatories, or an order of discovery or an order for inspection. A power of the Court to order production can not be construed in isolation to the power of the Court to order interrogation, discovery and inspection. Therefore, an order of production passed by the Court is the necessary outcome of the order of interrogation, discovery and inspection, the non compliance of which empowers the Court to pass an order striking out a defence under Order 11, Rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
For the proposition that the Court cannot compel the production of documents, however, it can pass an order for production and if the said order is disobeyed, the Court has to resort to Order 11, Rule 21 of Civil Procedure Code, the reliance is placed on para 16 in the case of P.A. Anbu Anandan v/s. D. Sivakumari, AIR 1999 Mad. 232.
16. Since the alleged Will of deceased late Shri Mahendrakumar P. Desai has been brought on the Page 13 of 21 HC-NIC Page 13 of 21 Created On Mon Aug 14 05:26:06 IST 2017 C/SCA/15178/2010 JUDGMENT record of the case of Civil Appeal No.3225 of 2010 by Respondent No.8 herein as soon as one Champalal J. Seth, an alliance of Petitioner, has handed over the same to the Respondent No.8 herein, judicial propriety demands that petitioner ought to have applied for leave before the Hon'ble Supreme Court to permit the Petitioner to produce the same before Trial Court and to apply before Trial Court to open up his defence.
17. As could be seen from the facts culled out from the pleadings the legal battle between the parties in respect of the subject Will has the chequered history and the litigation is being contested tooth and nail by the parties up to the Supreme Court.
18. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein have instituted Special Civil Suit No.516 of 2008 in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge for a declaration for there share in the compensation awarded for the acquisition of the land which was ancestral land. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted Exhibit-105 application under Order 11 of the Code for order against the present petitioner to produce original Will and Probate in the Court. The learned trial Judge by order dated 19.06.2009 directed the present petitioner to produce original Will and Probate under Order 11 Rule 14 of the Code or to file an affidavit. The petitioner, admittedly, Page 14 of 21 HC-NIC Page 14 of 21 Created On Mon Aug 14 05:26:06 IST 2017 C/SCA/15178/2010 JUDGMENT neither produce the original Will and Probate nor filed an affidavit. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2, therefore, preferred Exhibit-146 application to struck of the defence of the petitioner for non-compliance of the order below Exhibit-105. The learned trial Judge by order dated 23.11.2009 directed the petitioner to produce original Will in the Court by 11.12.2009 failing which his defence stand struck of.
19. The petitioner neither produced the original Will and Probate nor filed an affidavit, therefore, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed another application Exhibit-147 for directing the petitioner to produce original Will and Probate within two days. Learned trial Judge by order dated 23.11.2009 directed the petitioner to produce the original Will by 11.12.2009. That the petitioner, therefore, preferred Exhibit-172 application for hearing of the matter in regular course of manner by considering his right of defence. The learned trial Judge by order dated 04.01.2010 rejected his application on the ground that the petitioner was directed to produce the Will under the provisions of Order 11 Rule 12 and Rule 14, and thereafter, his defence is struck of under Order 11 Rule 21 and these orders are not challenged in the higher forum and the trial Court has no authority to interfere in his own orders.
Page 15 of 21
HC-NIC Page 15 of 21 Created On Mon Aug 14 05:26:06 IST 2017
C/SCA/15178/2010 JUDGMENT
20. At this juncture, it would be relevant to consider the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code:-
1. Appeal from Orders. - An appeal shall lie from the following orders under the provisions of section 104, namely:-
(a) an order under rule 10 of Order VII returning a plaint to be presented to the proper Court except where the procedure specified in rule 10A of Order VII has been followed;
[***]
(c) an order under rule 9 of Order IX rejecting an application (in a case open to appeal) for an order to set aside the dismissal of a suit;
[***]
(d) an order under rule 13 of Order IX rejecting an application (in a case open to appeal) for an order to set aside a decree passed ex parte;
[***]
(f) an order under rule 21 of Order XI; [***]
(i) an order under rule 34 of Order XXI on an objection to the draft of a document or of an endorsement;
(j) an order under rule 72 or rule 92 of Order XXI setting aside or refusing to set aside a sale; (ja) an order rejecting an application made under sub-rule (1) of rule 106 of Order XXI, provided that an order on the original application, that is to say, the application referred to in sub-rule (1) of rule 105 of that Order is appealable;
(k) an order under rule 9 of Order XXII refusing to set aside the abatement or dismissal of a suit;
(l) an order under rule 10 of Order XXII giving or refusing to give leave;Page 16 of 21
HC-NIC Page 16 of 21 Created On Mon Aug 14 05:26:06 IST 2017 C/SCA/15178/2010 JUDGMENT [***]
(n) an Order under rule 2 of Order XXV rejecting an application (ina case open to appeal) for an order to set aside the dismissal of a suit;
(na) an order under rule 5 or rule 7 of Order XXXIII rejecting an application for permission to sue as an indigent person;
[***]
(p) orders in interpleader-suits under rule 3, rule 4 or rule 6 of Order XXXV;
(q) an order under rule 2, rule 3 or rule 6 of Order XXXVIII;
(r) an order under rule 1, rule 2 [ rule 2A], rule 4 or rule 10 of Order XXXIX;
(s) an order under rule 1 or rule 4 of Order XL;
(t) an order of refusal under rule 19 of Order XLI to re- admit, or under rule 21 of Order XLI to re-hear, an appeal; (u) an order under rule 23 [or rule 23A] of Order XLI remanding a case, where an appeal would lie from the decree of the Appellate Court;
[***] (w) an order under rule 4 of Order XLVII granting an application for review.
21. The perusal of the order dated 19.06.2009 below Exhibit-105, whereunder, the petitioner was directed to either produce original Will and Probate or to file an affidavit reveals that in paragraph No.4 the learned trial Judge has very clearly stated that the Will and Probate are relevant documents, and therefore, they should be ordered to be produced under Order 11 Rule 14. This order is not appellable under Order 43 Rule 1.
Page 17 of 21
HC-NIC Page 17 of 21 Created On Mon Aug 14 05:26:06 IST 2017
C/SCA/15178/2010 JUDGMENT
22. The learned trial Judge while passing the order dated 23.11.2009 below Exhibit-146 without perusing the order passed below Exhibit-105, has recorded the order that the petitioner was directed to produce the original Will and Probate, and though, the probate is produced, the petitioner has failed to produce the original Will. Though, it transpires from the Rojkam of Misc. Application No.224 of 2001 that the original Will was return to the petitioner. According to the learned trial Judge, the defence of the petitioner can be struck of Under Order 11 Rule 21 for non production of the Will, but, as a last chance, the petitioner was directed to produce the Will by 11.12.2009 failing which that his defence stand struck of. Therefore, Exhibit-172 application preferred by the petitioner to permit him to contest the suit on merit by considering his defence came to be rejected essentially on the ground of earlier order passed below Exhibit-105 and Exhibit-146 were not challenge before the higher forum and the Court had passed the order had no jurisdiction to interfere with his own orders.
23. The reading of order below Exhibit-105 makes it manifestly clear that while passing the order the trial Court, conscious of the provisions, namely, Order 11 Rule 14 to invoke its jurisdiction for directing the Page 18 of 21 HC-NIC Page 18 of 21 Created On Mon Aug 14 05:26:06 IST 2017 C/SCA/15178/2010 JUDGMENT petitioner to produce the original Will and Probate.
24. The various decisions relied upon by Mr. Sanjanwala, learned senior counsel makes it very clear that the defence cannot be struck of for non- compliance of order passed nor Order 11 Rule 14. It is only when there is non-compliance of Order as envisaged under Order 11 Rule 21 the defence can be struck of. The learned trial Judge while considering the Exhibit-172 application of the petitioner without examining the orders passed below Exhibit-105 and Exhibit-146 has merely dismissed the application for permitting the petitioner to contest the suit on merit only on the ground of order passed below Exhibit-105 and Exhibit-146 are not for attain finality and the Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with its own order. In my opinion, the reasons adopted by the learned trial Judge for dismissing the Exhibit-176 cannot be countenanced. I am, therefore, of the view that instead of delving upon this preliminary objections raised by the learned advocates for the respondent as regards the maintainability of the present petition without expressing any opinion an orders passed by the learned trial Judge below Exhibit-105 and Exhibit-146, it would be apposite to refer Exhibit-172 to the Trial Court for fresh consideration.
Page 19 of 21
HC-NIC Page 19 of 21 Created On Mon Aug 14 05:26:06 IST 2017
C/SCA/15178/2010 JUDGMENT
25. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is partly allowed. The order passed below Exhibit-172 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is referred to learned trial Judge for fresh consideration after affording opportunity of hearing to the learned advocates for the parties before passing orders in accordance with law.
26. Since this Court is informed that the Supreme Court has expedited the trial Court of the suit, the learned trial Judge is expected to decide the Exhibit- 176 application on or before 17th July, 2017 and the learned advocates for the parties are requested to cooperate with the learned trial Judge.
27. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of Exhibit-172 application and the learned trial Judge shall decide it independently in accordance with law without being influenced by this order. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. Direct service is permitted.
28. In view of the order passed in the main matter the Civil Application Nos. 748/2017, 3123/2017, 5693/2017 do not survive and stand disposed of.
Page 20 of 21 HC-NIC Page 20 of 21 Created On Mon Aug 14 05:26:06 IST 2017 C/SCA/15178/2010 JUDGMENT (A.G.URAIZEE,J) Manoj Page 21 of 21 HC-NIC Page 21 of 21 Created On Mon Aug 14 05:26:06 IST 2017