Dinesh Bhogilal Chunawala vs Yusufbhai Mohamadbhai Patel on 6 February, 2017

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Dinesh Bhogilal Chunawala vs Yusufbhai Mohamadbhai Patel on 6 February, 2017

Bench: Rajesh H.Shukla

                    C/SA/232/2014                                                  ORDER




                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                               SECOND APPEAL NO. 232 of 2014

         ==========================================================
                      DINESH BHOGILAL CHUNAWALA....Appellant(s)
                                      Versus
                    YUSUFBHAI MOHAMADBHAI PATEL....Respondent(s)
         ==========================================================
         Appearance:
         MR PM LAKHANI, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
         MRS R P LAKHANI, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
         MR MM SAIYED, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
         ==========================================================

          CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA

                                          Date : 06/02/2017


                                            ORAL ORDER

ADMIT on substantial questions of law posed as follows:

(1) Whether the conclusion of the first appellate court below that the judgment and decree of the lower court (Civil Court/Trial Court) is erroneous and requires interference is just and proper? Whether such conclusion of the first appellate court below is itself erroneous and bad in law?

(2) Whether the first appellate court below were justified in passing the impugned judgment and decree in the facts and circumstances of the case before it?

(3) Whether the first appellate court below may allow the appeal and grant relief in favour of the appellant without quashing and setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court (civil court)?

Page 1 of 3

HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Tue Feb 07 00:40:49 IST 2017 C/SA/232/2014 ORDER (4) Whether the first appellate court below was justified in passing the impugned judgment and decree more particularly without framing any issues for its determination and decision as required under the provisions of CPC?

(5) Whether the first appellate court below was justified in passing the impugned judgment and decree more particularly without re-appreciating the evidence adduced on record by the concerned parties?

(6) Whether the first appellate court below was justified in passing the impugned judgment and decree more particularly without dealing with the findings given by the learned trial court (Civil Court) on the various facts and law points?

(7) Whether the first appellate court below was justified in passing the impugned judgment and decree more particularly remaining completely silent on the various aspects which are dealt by the trial court considering the facts and circumstances and evidence in the present case?

(8) Whether the first appellate court below was justified inn passing the impugned judgment and decree more particularly when the land was given on permanent lease up to the existence of sun and moon and when the structure situated upon the land was under the ownership of the present appellant i.e. original defendant when and when the changes have been made only in the structure and not in the land, hence can it be said to be breach of provisions of Section 13(1)(b) of the Rent Act and Section 108(p) of the T.P. Act?

(9) Whether the first appellate court below was justified in passing the impugned judgment and decree more particularly when absolutely there is no finding given by the first appellate court in respect of alternate/appropriate remedy which was available to the original plaintiff as held by the trial court (Civil Court)?

Page 2 of 3

HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Tue Feb 07 00:40:49 IST 2017 C/SA/232/2014 ORDER (RAJESH H.SHUKLA, J.) (hn) Page 3 of 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Tue Feb 07 00:40:49 IST 2017

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court