Gujarat High Court
Kirankumar vs Martin on 2 March, 2010
Author: R. Tripathi
Bench: Ravi R.Tripathi
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/1578120/2008 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 15781 of 2008
=========================================================
KIRANKUMAR
RANCHHODBHAI PATEL THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY & 4 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
MARTIN
SHAILESHBHAI PATEL-MINOR THROUGH MOTHER AND GUARDIAN & 4 -
Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
RS SANJANWALA for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 5.
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 - 5.
MR
NV GANDHI for Respondent(s) : 1 - 3.
MR DC DAVE for Respondent(s)
: 4 - 5.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 02/03/2010
ORAL
ORDER
The present petition is field by as many as five petitioners who are original defendant Nos.3 to 7.
Heard learned advocate Mr. Sanjanwala for the petitioners. He invited attention of the court to page 75 which is an order passed below Ex.121 wherein it was observed that:
4.
The defts. No.3 to 7 objected the present application and thereby argued that the defts. No.3 to 7 earlier given the application vide exh.111 to transpose the defts. No.3 to 7 to plfts. and the said application was rejected and it was held that the rights and interest of defts. No.3 to 7 are not identical to that of the Plts. and thereby, application of the defts. No.3 to 7 for transposing them to Plts. was rejected and now the defts. No.1 & 2 cannot take the stand again, while stating that the rights and the interest of the defts. No.3 to 7 are identical to that of the Plts. and therefore, argued that the application requires to be rejected .
The learned Judge finally allowed the application and the relevant part of the observation made by the learned Judge in paragraph 9 reads as under:
9.
While defts. No.1 & 2, who do not support the case in any part i.e., defts. No.1 and 2, who states themselves to be the bonafide purchaser of the disputed suit property and therefore, the defts. No.1 & 2 do not support the case of the plts. in any part. Hence, the defts. No.1 & 2 requires to adduce their evidence after the evidence of defts. No.3 to 7 .
That being so, the order passed below application Ex.252 is running contrary to the order passed below Ex.121 and hence the matter requires consideration.
Rule.
Learned advocate Mr. N.V. Gandhi waives service of rule.
Taking into consideration the order passed below ex.121 the order which is passed below application ex.252 requires to be quashed and set aside and accordingly the same is quashed and set aside.
The learned advocate Mr. Gandhi apprises this court that he will instruct his counterpart to extend full cooperation to enable cross-examination of defendant No.2 as defendant No.1 is already cross examined and this fact is pointed out by Mr. Gandhi to Mr. Sanjanwala, learned advocate for the petitioners.
With this observation, the petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute.
(Ravi R. Tripathi, J.) ...
(karan) Top