Gujarat High Court
Heirs And L.R. Of Deceased Jagjivanbhai vs Jamnaben Wd/O. Maganlal Manilal & 9 on 23 June, 2017
Author: J.B.Pardiwala
Bench: J.B.Pardiwala
C/SCA/9142/2016 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9142 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1979 of 2017
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9142 of 2016
==========================================================
HEIRS AND L.R. OF DECEASED JAGJIVANBHAI
CHHIMKABHAI....Petitioner(s)
Versus
JAMNABEN WD/O. MAGANLAL MANILAL & 9....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RAJESH K SAVJANI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No.1-1.7.1, 1.8,
1.8.2
MS NISHA THAKORE, AGP ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO GP/PP for the
Respondent(s) No. 10
MR AB MUNSHI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 6
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 7 - 10
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 23/06/2017
COMMON ORAL ORDER
1. By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the applicants call in question the legality and validity of the order dated 16/01/2016 passed by the S.S.R.D. at Ahmedabad, by which, the S.S.R.D. rejected the revision application filed by the applicants herein, thereby, affirming the order passed by the Collector, Surat, dated 30/12/2011 in REV/VASHI.1178/2011.
2. The dispute pertains to the land bearing survey no.358 of the Page 1 of 14 HC-NIC Page 1 of 14 Created On Sun Aug 20 04:43:52 IST 2017 C/SCA/9142/2016 ORDER Block No.335 admeasuring 10016 sq.mtrs. situated at Village Pal, TalukaChoryashi, DistrictSurat City. The subject land was running in the name of one Chimkabhai Kalabhai. The name of Chimkabhai Kalabhai was mutated in the revenue record and he was granted the said land for cultivation as a Vethiya. The land initially was of a restricted tenure. For better understanding of the dispute, let me take note of the family pedigree, which is provided in the petition.
FAMILY TREE
Kalabhai Manibhai
Chhipka Soma Premabhai Maganbhai Chhunilal
Jagjivan Kashiben Jamnaben Ramilaben Jasuben
(Son) (daughter) (wife) (daughter) (daughter)
Gamatben Babliben Nanduben
(wife) (daughter) (daughter)
Parvatiben Laxmi Ashok Vina Girish Satish Arvind Pravin
(wife) (daughter) (son) (daughter) (son) (son) (son) (son)
Dakshaben Savitaben
(wife) (wife)
3. The applicants herein are claiming their right over the subject land through Somabhai and one Maganbhai. Chimkabhai and Somabhai were Page 2 of 14 HC-NIC Page 2 of 14 Created On Sun Aug 20 04:43:52 IST 2017 C/SCA/9142/2016 ORDER real brothers and Maganbhai is the cousin brother of Chimkabhai and Somabhai. It appears from the materials on record that wayback on 01/05/1942 an entry came to be mutated bearing No.807 in the record of rights, by which, Chimkabhai is said to have given up his right in the property in favour of his brother Somabhai. This entry No.807 dated 01/05/1942 came to be questioned by the applicants herein claiming through Jagjivanbhai and Kashiben in the year 1989 by filing the RTS Appeal No.36 of 1989 before the Assistant Collector, Choryashi, Surat. A very unusual order came to be passed by the Assistant Collector dated 23/05/1989, by which, he declined to register the appeal and at the same time, transferred the proceedings to the Mamlatdar, Choryashi for an appropriate inquiry. The Assistant Collector observed that the necessary steps should be taken after the receipt of the inquiry report. Indisputably, till this date, there is no inquiry report on the record in this regard. What has happened with the said inquiry, is not known. The applicants also did not bother to pursue with the authority concerned.
4. It appears that thereafter, a Special Civil Suit No.233 of 1990 came to be filed by the applicants herein in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Surat, for partition and injunction. It appears that initially, the Civil Court passed an order of status quo so far as the subject land is concerned. During the pendency of the above referred Civil Suit, one of the defendants died and therefore, an application was filed for bringing the legal heirs on record of the said defendant. During the pendency of the said application i.e. for substitution of the legal heirs of the deceased defendant, the original plaintiff no.1 also passed away. It appears that in the year 2013, the Civil Suit referred to above came to be abated as a whole. For a period of two years thereafter the applicants did not do anything. It further appears that the learned advocate who was appearing for the applicants also passed away. The applicants herein Page 3 of 14 HC-NIC Page 3 of 14 Created On Sun Aug 20 04:43:52 IST 2017 C/SCA/9142/2016 ORDER preferred a restoration application before the Civil Court which came to be rejected.
5. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Civil Court rejecting the restoration application, the Civil Revision Application No.359 of 2015 came to be filed before this Court. A learned Single Judge of this Court by judgment and order dated 22/12/2015 rejected the revision application. The order reads thus:
1. Heard learned advocate for the parties.
2. Brief relevant facts are thus, plaintiffs have instituted a suit i.e. Special Civil Suit No. 233 of 1990, claiming partition in the suit land. It appears that it is the say of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs' grandfather was given the suit land in 1942 as they were working as labourers therein. Then in 1961 cousin brothers got entered their names in the suit land in revenue record removing the name of the grandfather of the plaintiffs. The said suit is instituted by brother and sister. Pending the suit plaintiff No.1 (brother) expired on 14.07.1998 prior to that defendant No.1 has expired and later on defendant No.2 has expired. Non joining of heirs of deceased parties in the suit proceedings has in the end given rise to the present application.
3. After hearing learned advocate for the applicants this Court by order dated 24.09.2015 issued notice. In response of that learned advocate Mr. A.B. Munshi has filed appearance on behalf of the opponents. Learned senior advocate Mr. Marshal appeared on behalf of learned advocate Mr. Munshi.
4. To appreciate the submissions of learned advocates for the parties and facts and circumstances of the case, I may say further relevant facts. That defendant No.1 has died on 30.11.1996. An application to bring legal heirs of defendant No.1 on record was filed on 03.09.1997, which is Exh. 72. By order dated 05.12.1997 Court has rejected the application mainly on the ground that the applicants ought to have filed delay condone application and the present application to bring legal heirs of deceased has filed without such delay condone application. This order was not carried out in appeal etc. Then application Exh.99 was filed on 04.05.2000 to join legal heirs of the plaintiff No.1 who was died on 14.07.1998. Order came to be passed on 19.12.2013 whereby Court has disposed of Exh. 99 and had passed an order below Exh.1 holding that suit is abated and accordingly Exh.
Page 4 of 14HC-NIC Page 4 of 14 Created On Sun Aug 20 04:43:52 IST 2017 C/SCA/9142/2016 ORDER 99 was disposed of. Thereafter application came to be filed by the applicants to bring on record the legal heirs of plaintiff No.1 as well as heirs of defendant Nos. 1 and 2. This application was filed on 19.03.2015. Order came to be passed on 06.08.2015. By the said order Court has rejected the applicants' application and against that order the present revision application is filed.
5. At the time of hearing learned advocate for the applicants has drawn attention to following case laws.
(1) Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalara (Dead) by LRS. and Others v. Pramod Gupta (Smt) (Dead) by LRS. and Others, (2003) 3 SCC 272. (2) Ram Nath Sao alias Ram Nath Sahu and Others v. Gobardhan Sao and Others, (2002) 3 SCC 195.
(3) K.Rudrappa v. Shivappa, (2004) 12 SCC 253. (4) Ganeshprasad Badrinarayan Lahoti(D) by LRS. v. Sangeevprasad Jamnaprasad Chourasiya and another, (2004) 7 SCC 482. (5) Bhag Mal Alias Ram Bux and Others v. Munshi (Dead) by LRS. and Others, (2007) 11 SCC 285.
(6) Matuben Sundarji Sejpal v. Anantbhai Tekchand, 1995 (1) GLH 673. (7) Karsanbhai Amarabhai Rabari v. Mathurbhai Karabhai Vasava, 1996(0) GLHELHC 206256.
(8) Mohatta Brothers v. Sheth Chaturbhujdas Chimanlal and Others, 1981 GLH 30.
(9) Banwari Lal (D) by LRS. & Anr. v. Balbir Singh, 2015(3) GLH 192. (10) Surjit Singh v. Gurwant Kaur, 2014(3) GLH 163. (11) The decision of the Madras High Court rendered in the case of R.M. Raja Ambalam v. Malayandi and Others in CRP. PD (MD) No.310 of 2004 and C.M.P. (MD) No. 1460 of 2004, dated 06/07/2007. (12) The decision of the Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Suresh Chander and others v. Mahesh Chand and Others in CRP No. 33/2007, dated 09/08/2007.
6. Learned advocate for the applicants has submitted that original plaintiffs are poor and they are members of schedule castes that being so they could not file application to bring the legal heirs on record within statutory time. It was submitted that joining heirs is only procedural requirement and same should not be construed so strictly that his case on merits remained unconsidered. Further it was pointed out that in this case deceased plaintiff was not the sole plaintiff and Page 5 of 14 HC-NIC Page 5 of 14 Created On Sun Aug 20 04:43:52 IST 2017 C/SCA/9142/2016 ORDER another plaintiff is namely sister and she is still alive. It was submitted that right to sue has not come to an end and for that reason also technical consideration ought not to weigh with the Court in adjudication of the case on merits. Referring to first order (Exh.72) it was submitted that said application for brining legal heirs of defendant No.1 was rejected, only on the ground that delay condone application is not filed. Commenting on Exh. 99 it was submitted that the order passed as late as in 2013 and before passing the order Court has issued notice to plaintiffdead person. Passing an order after issuing notice in this fashion vitiates the order. It was also pointed out that during the pendency of the suit, advocate engaged by the plaintiffs has also expired and for that reason also the applicants could not filed the proper application within time.
7. Strong reliance was placed on Surjit Singh case (Supra) and Banwari Lal case (Supra).
8. On the other hand, learned senior advocate Mr. Marshal for the opponents vehemently opposed the present application. It was submitted that bona fide intention of the plaintiffs is fairly suspicious, since the application is filed by the power of attorney of the plaintiffs. In the circumstances of the present case, filing of the application by power of attorney is, in the opinion of the learned advocate is fairly suspicious. Further referring the reliefs claimed in the present application, it was submitted that orders passed in 1997 and 2013 are sought to be challenged after so much lapse of time. It was also submitted that proper remedy for the applicants is to file appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 and the present application is not maintainable. It was also submitted that the order of the trial Court is well reasoned and does not call for interference in the present application.
9. As to the submissions of applicants that filing of application to join legal heirs without application for condonation of delay and this requirement is only procedural requirement and claim of the parties ought not to be thrown out only on the basis of noncompliance of procedural requirement, strong reliance was placed on recent decision of Supreme Court in Banwari Lal case (Supra) therein Court has observed that Provision of Order XXII are not penal in nature. It is a rule of procedure and substantial rights of the parties cannot be defeated by pedantic approach by observing strict adherence to the procedure aspects of law. In this regard the Court in that case has placed reliance on earlier decision in Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalara v. Pramod Gupta, (2003) 3 SCC 272. Quoting relevant para for the same Court has emphasized & The provisions contained in Order 22 are not to be construed as a rigid matter of principle but must ever be viewed as a flexible tool of convenience in the administration of justice .... Further emphasized was also placed in Sardar Amarjit Page 6 of 14 HC-NIC Page 6 of 14 Created On Sun Aug 20 04:43:52 IST 2017 C/SCA/9142/2016 ORDER Singh Kalara case ... Interests of justice would have been better served had the High Court adopted a positive and constructive approach than merely scuttled the whole process to foreclose an adjudication of the claims of others on merits. The rejection by the High Court of the applications to set aside abatement, condonation and brining on record the legal representatives does not appear, on the peculiar nature of the case, to be a just or reasonable exercise of the Court's power or in conformity with the avowed object of the Court to do real, effective and substantial justice.... The Court has also referred and relied upon the Sital Prasad Saxena (D) by Lrs. v. Union of India and Ors., (1985) 1 SCC 163.
10. In recent case of Banwari Lal (Supra) order passed in second appeal was challenged before Supreme Court. In that case defendant Banwari Lal had expired in 2006 during the pendency of appeal before District Court. District Court delivered judgment in 2008. Legal heirs of the Banwari Lal filed second appeal before the High Court and during pendency of second appeal one of the appellants had also died in 2008. Second appeal was dismissed for non prosecution in 2010. Restoration application was filed in 2010 and the same was allowed. Thereafter, second appeal was dismissed holding that legal heirs of the deceased parties were not brought on record within time.
11. So far as the death of second appellant is concerned, it appears that three separate applications were filed, one for condoning delay, other for setting aside abatement and third to bring legal heirs of the deceased appellant No.2 on record. All these applications were filed in 2009. The appellant No.2 had expired in 2008 and what weighed with the Court is though the second appeal was restored after it being dismissed for non prosecution, no specific order was passed in any of the applications. In other words, the applications remained pending. As to the death of Banwari Lal, it found that he had died during the pendency of the appeal before the District Court wherein respondent before High Court was appellant and it was his duty to bring legal heirs of Banwari Lal on record. Despite legal heirs not being on record, legal heirs had filed second appeal and after filing neither Registry nor respondent pointed out the incorrect reference to the legal heirs of Banwari Lal. In that view of the matter application on behalf of the Banwari Lal was moved under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC to join them as parties. This was opposed by the opponent and second appeal came to be dismissed by High Court and against that Supreme Court allowed appeal.
12. Unlike the Banwari Lal case, facts of the present case are quite glaring. The last order passed below Exh.1 in Civil Misc. Application No. 33 of 2015 on 06.08.2015, wherein the application was made on 19.03.2015 to bring legal heirs and for condoning delay. So far as Page 7 of 14 HC-NIC Page 7 of 14 Created On Sun Aug 20 04:43:52 IST 2017 C/SCA/9142/2016 ORDER filing late application for condoning delay in bringing legal heirs is concerned, in addition to above case, learned advocate for the applicant also drawn attention of this Court to the decision rendered in case of K.Rudrappa v. Shivappa (Supra) (Paras 10 and 11). Relevant paras are quoted in the memo itself. One may not take technical view as to non filing of separate application for condonation of delay. However, the common application must spell out the sufficient cause for condoning delay. In the present case, ground for condoning delay are stated in Para 2 of the application wherein applicant has advanced four grounds for condoning delay. To say the least none of the grounds stated by the applicant has any substance. Grounds are stated in very casual and formal manner, despite the unusually long period of delay. That being so for failing to make out any ground for condoning delay, K.Rudrappa v. Shivappa (Supra) and other cases relied upon by the applicants do not help the applicants. The order passed by the trial Court below Exh.1 in Civil Misc. Application No. 33 of 2015 shows that the trial Court has considered the claim of the applicants and after duly considering the same it has rejected the same. It has given reasons. It cannot be said that the said order suffers from any jurisdictional error. Further, there is substance in objection raised by the learned advocate for the opponents that proper remedy is to file appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 and only in exceptional case when the applicant makes out the case of jurisdictional error is committed, Court may entertain the revision and such is not the case herein.
13. As to the grievance made about the order passed below Exh.1 in Special Civil Suit No. 233 of 1990, in 2013 the Court has clearly recorded that despite the case adjourned for various dates, neither the legal heirs nor the advocate remained present. No attempt was made to pursue the application. It cannot be said that the Court committed any serious illegality and irregularity in passing the said order. Besides that it may be noted that instead of challenging the said order, the applicants had moved Civil Misc. Application No. 33 of 2015 and obtained order passed below Exh.1 in that application on 06.08.2015. That being so objection as to the earlier order more or less become academic. Similarly, objection as to the order passed below Exh.72 loses it force in view of non challenging the said order before appropriate forum and particularly in view of filing Civil Misc. Application No. 33 of 2015 and obtaining order thereon. It may be bear in mind that the order below Exh. 72 was passed on 05.12.1997.
14. Lastly, as to the submission of respondents that bona fide intention of plaintiffs is suspicious. It can be said that the applicants themselves by their conduct has given room to the other side to raise such plea. In suit of 1990, power of attorney is executed in 2015. Weight of circumstances are against such move. Further it was pointed Page 8 of 14 HC-NIC Page 8 of 14 Created On Sun Aug 20 04:43:52 IST 2017 C/SCA/9142/2016 ORDER out that power of attorney resides at one place, the plaintiffs are at far away different place. It may also be noted in this regard that in order under challenge dated 06.08.2015 the trial Court has also made comment in this regard. The applicants have no answer to this relevant aspect.
15. In view of above, and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would not be just, legal and proper to condone the delay and to give life to the proceeding via power of attorney which applicant/plaintiff has allowed to die peacefully. No interference is called for in this revision. Hence, it is rejected. Notice discharged.
6. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by this Court referred to above, the applicants herein went before the Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition No.7143 of 2016. The Supreme Court by an order dated 25/04/2016 disposed of the Special Leave Petition in the following terms: Upon hearing the counsel the Court made the following.
O R D E R The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the application for substitution of the legal representatives was very much on record before the courts below but the said fact has not been considered by the High Court.
In view of the above, it would be just and proper if the petitioners approach the High Court by filing a review application and we are sure that the High Court shall consider the submissions which might be made, in accordance with law.
The special leave petition is accordingly disposed of.
It would be open to the petitioners to approach this Court again, if aggrieved by the order which might be passed by the High Court.
7. On the strength of the order passed by the Supreme Court, the applicants herein have preferred a Review Application being the Misc. Civil Application No.1604 of 2016, which is pending as on date. On 10/06/2016, the following order was passed: Page 9 of 14 HC-NIC Page 9 of 14 Created On Sun Aug 20 04:43:52 IST 2017 C/SCA/9142/2016 ORDER Heard learned advocate for the applicants.
Notice.
While issuing notice, it is clarified that reading of lengthy memo of application prima faice gives impression that it repeats the ground that were urged at the time of hearing of the revision application. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is any error apparent on the face of the record. Otherwise also, lengthy memo itself in a sense implies that there is no error apparent on the face of the record.
Notice is issued only because it was pointed out that before passing of the order by the learned trial Court on 19.12.2013 below Exhibit1, the Court has issued notice to the original plaintiff no. 1 i.e. the dead person, despite the fact that the application to bring legal heirs on record (Exhibit99) was very much on record and names of legal heirs were on record. In other words, notice was not issued to the legal heirs, but only to dead person. At this stage, it is not clear that this plea did came up for consideration while disposing of the revision application or not.
In view of the above, Notice returnable on 05.07.2016. Direct Service is permitted.
8. Be that as it may, if ultimately, the applicants succeed in the review application and the original suit is restored to its original file and if the same is adjudicated and the rights of the parties are crystallized, then the law will take its own course. Today, what is questioned before me in substance, is an order passed by the Collector converting the new tenure land to old tenure for the residential purpose on the condition of payment of the premium fixed.
Mr. Munshi, the learned counsel appearing for the purchasers brings it to my notice that an amount of Rs.4 Crore and odd was fixed by the Collector towards the premium and the same came to be deposited with the State Government. This fact is not in dispute. However, according to Mr. Savjani, earlier the Collector had passed the very same order fixing a requisite amount towards the premium, but as the purchasers failed to make good the payment, the order lapsed.
Page 10 of 14HC-NIC Page 10 of 14 Created On Sun Aug 20 04:43:52 IST 2017 C/SCA/9142/2016 ORDER
9. The order of the Collector converting the new tenure land to old tenure by depositing of the premium amount came to be challenged before the S.S.R.D. and the S.S.R.D. has affirmed the order by assigning cogent reasons.
10. Being dissatisfied, the applicants are here invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article227 of the Constitution of India.
11. The short point for my consideration is whether the Collector and the S.S.R.D. committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned orders leading to miscarriage of justice. What is important, is to consider what right the applicants are ascertaining so far as the subject land is concerned. An entry of 1942 came to be challenged in 1989. In 1989 the Assistant Collector ordered an inquiry. It was expected of the applicants to pursue the Civil Suit and get an appropriate declaration and if, such declaration would have been given then the things would have been altogether different. Today, the position is that the Civil Suit has also gone and there is nothing on the basis of which any right, title or interest can be claimed over the subject land. It is only for the Civil Court, who could have adjudicated the dispute and could have declared the rights, if any, of the applicants in the subject land. The original owners were well within their rights to sell the land. If the land is sold by a registered sale deed and if the purchasers seek permission before the Collector to convert the land from new tenure to old tenure, then it is within the powers of the Collector to consider such request. In my view, no error, not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by the Collector in passing the order of conversion to old tenure. The next step in the process would be seeking N.A. Permission.
Page 11 of 14HC-NIC Page 11 of 14 Created On Sun Aug 20 04:43:52 IST 2017 C/SCA/9142/2016 ORDER
12. Even if the Civil Suit would have been pending, then probably, the applicants would have remained protected by virtue of order of status quo, but unfortunately, the suit is also dismissed.
13. In the aforesaid factual background, I find it extremely difficult to interfere with the order passed by the S.S.R.D. in exercise of my supervisory jurisdiction under Article227 of the Constitution of India. I may only say that as on date, if there is any inquiry pending pursuant to the order passed by the Assistant Collector way back in the year 1989 as referred to above, then the same may be concluded in accordance with law and the Inquiring Authority shall file an appropriate report before the authority concerned.
14. At this stage, Mr. Munshi, points out that even the development permission has been granted by the Corporation pursuant to the N.A. Permission granted by the Collector. There is no question of challenging the N.A. order also in the present proceedings.
15. The law in this regard is also well settled. I am saying so because there is a challenge even to the grant of the N.A. permission in the present petition. This Court in the case of Bhayabhai Vajshibhai Hathalia & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in 2012 (2) GLR 1741, wherein, the learned Single Judge of this Court held in Paragraphs20 and 21 as under:
20. Thus, from the aforesaid almost indisputable aspects, this Court is called upon to examine the contentions in respect of the order impugned in this petition. Plain reading of section 65 of the Code in my view would persuade the Court to hold that section 65 of the Code does not envisage scope of raising any objection in any party who is not acknowledged right or interest in the land in question. In other words proceedings under section 65 of the Code is not an adversely proceeding at all. If any interested party is apprehending any smart Page 12 of 14 HC-NIC Page 12 of 14 Created On Sun Aug 20 04:43:52 IST 2017 C/SCA/9142/2016 ORDER practice on any one in respect of land it can always take recourse to the civil court for obtaining appropriate injunction or prohibitory orders. When the party fails obtaining any appropriate order of injunction or prohibitory order from the competent civil court, then that party, atleast in my view, would not be entitled to seek any prohibitory orders against the person whose name is shown in the revenue record as an occupant. Or else it will lead to a situation where on account of showing semblance of some interest in the land in question or for that matter even substantive interest the party who has not been successful in establishing its right and obtain any prohibitory orders would succeed in thwarting and throatling the occupant of the land in question who is legitimately acknowledged to be occupant by revenue authorities. The N.A. Permission under section 65 cannot be said to be in any manner conferring and or abridging title of any one if it exists in the land in question. It is merely an act of granting permission by the authority qua the piece of land in question. In other words it can well be said that the land which was an agricultural land and it was supposed to put up to agricultural purpose, is decided to be freed from restrictions and permitted to be developed. Thus the permission is attached to the land in question and not to the person. Therefore in my view the interpretation of section 65 of the Code cannot be said to be in any manner rendering it to be adversarial proceedings at all.
21. Bearing the aforesaid proposition of law in mind when one examines the aspect of appeal preferred by the contesting respondents, one would find it difficult to accept as to how the right to appeal is said to have been conferred upon a third party who has failed in establishing any right before the civil court so far as the land in question is concerned. When the party has not obtained any order or has not been succeeful in obtaining any order in any manner from civil court, which is competent, i.e. only court to adjudicate upon and acknwoeldge their rights and title in the land in question, that party cannot be permitted to throw spanner in the wheels of developemnt set in motion by the legitimate competent authroty, whose entery is there in the reveue record. Therefore the appeal itself from the point of view of locus was also not obtained.
16. In view of the above, this application fails and is hereby rejected.
ORDER PASSED IN CIVIL APPLICATION: In view of the order passed in the main matter, the connected Civil Application is also disposed of.
Page 13 of 14HC-NIC Page 13 of 14 Created On Sun Aug 20 04:43:52 IST 2017 C/SCA/9142/2016 ORDER (J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) aruna Page 14 of 14 HC-NIC Page 14 of 14 Created On Sun Aug 20 04:43:52 IST 2017