Gujarat High Court
Sentinel Properties Private Limited ... vs Ajay Surendra Patel & 3 on 18 July, 2016
Author: A.G.Uraizee
Bench: A.G.Uraizee
C/AO/209/2016 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 209 of 2016
===============================================================
SENTINEL PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH RAJESH
MANMAL LODHA,....Appellant(s)
Versus
AJAY SURENDRA PATEL & 3....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR SALIL M THAKORE, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR DHAVAL D VYAS, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2 - 3
MR JAYESH V PATEL, CAVEATOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR NARENDRA L JAIN, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 4
===============================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE
Date : 18/07/2016
ORAL ORDER
1. Admit.
2. Mr.Jayesh Patel, learned advocate for respondent No.1, Mr.Dhaval D. Vyas, learned advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Mr.Narendra Jain, learned advocate for respondent No.4 waive service of notice of admission.
3. The issue involved in the present Appeal moves in narrow compass and therefore with the consent of learned advocates for the appellant and learned advocates for respondents, the appeal is taken up for final disposal today.
4. The appellant has challenged the order dated 04.05.2016 passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad Page 1 of 4 HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Mon Jul 25 05:51:38 IST 2016 C/AO/209/2016 ORDER (Rural) at Viramgam below Exhs.5 and 16 in Special Civil Suit No.09 of 2015, whereby both the parties i.e. appellant as well as respondents are ordered to maintain status quo in respect of title and possession of the suit property as mentioned in Schedule A and Schedule B of Exh.5 application, till the final disposal of the suit.
5. The appellant has mainly contended, in this appeal that, though the learned Trial Judge has directed the parties including the appellant herein - original defendant no.3 to maintain status quo despite findings recorded in para:17, as extracted hereunder.
"It is stated that the defendant No.1 is a director in the defendant No.2 company and is responsible for the business as well as the management of the day to day affairs of the defendant No.2 company, but the plaintiff has not produced any documentary evidence so as to prove it. The plaintiff has also not produced any documentary evidence to show that how the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are connected with the defendant No.1. Moreover, the defendant No.3, in his reply, has stated that he is not connected with the defendant No.1. How the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.3 are connected with each other, and how the plaintiff has right for prayer against the defendant No.3, is not proved by the plaintiff by producing documentary evidence. It is also necessary to note that the plaintiff has not Page 2 of 4 HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Mon Jul 25 05:51:38 IST 2016 C/AO/209/2016 ORDER given any explanation against the written reply of the defendant No.3." ,
6. Mr.Percy Kavina, learned senior counsel for respondent No.1 he has no objection, without affecting the rights of respondent No.1, who is the original plaintiff, if the status quo order granted by the learned Trial Judge vide impugned order is vacated qua properties enlisted in Schedule - A belonging to the appellant with a liberty in favour of respondent No.1 original plaintiff to agitate and challenge any of the observations made in the impugned order in any proceedings.
7. In view of the above, the present appeal succeeds and hereby is allowed. The impugned order dated 04.05.2016 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Viramgam below Exhs.5 and 16 in Special Civil Suit No.09 of 2015, whereby both the parties are directed to maintain status quo in respect of the properties enlisted in Schedule A and Schedule B of the impugned order, is hereby modified and status quo in respect of the properties enlisted in Schedule - A belonging to the appellant is hereby vacated.
8. It is clarified that, the observations made in the impugned order are kept open to be agitated or challenged in any proceeding by the parties to the litigation. It is also clarified that this Court has not examined or gone into the merits of the matter and the appeal is solely decided on the basis of the consensus of the parties.
9. The parties are at liberty to move learned Trial Judge for expeditious disposal of the suit. As and when such application is moved before the learned Trial Judge, the learned Trial Judge Page 3 of 4 HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Mon Jul 25 05:51:38 IST 2016 C/AO/209/2016 ORDER shall consider it and try to expedite the disposal of the suit.
10. The learned Trial Judge shall decide the suit strictly on merits in accordance with law on the basis of evidence adduced before it without being influenced in any manner by this order of the impugned order.
(A.G.URAIZEE,J) Amit Page 4 of 4 HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Mon Jul 25 05:51:38 IST 2016