Gujarat High Court
Manishbhai Parshotambhai Ladva vs Bhupatbhai Mohanbhai Vekaria & ... on 13 February, 2017
Author: Sonia Gokani
Bench: Sonia Gokani
C/CRA/524/2016 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 524 of 2016
==========================================================
MANISHBHAI PARSHOTAMBHAI LADVA....Applicant(s)
Versus
BHUPATBHAI MOHANBHAI VEKARIA & 15....Opponent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance :
MR PRATIK Y JASANI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR AMAR D MITHANI, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 16
MR MOUSAM R YAGNIK, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 6 - 9
MR NIRAD D BUCH, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 6 - 9
MR NIRAV C SANGHAVI, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1 - 5 , 10 - 13,
15
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Opponent(s) No. 1 - 5 , 10 - 15
==========================================================
CORAM HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
:
Date : 13/02/2017
ORAL ORDER
1. The opponent Nos.6 to 9 as well as opponent No.16 are permitted to delete paragraph 8 from their respective additional affidavit dated February 13, 2017 tendered today. Necessary deletion be carried out forthwith.
2. The challenge in this Revision Application was to the order dated October 28, 2016, passed by the Page 1 of 5 HC-NIC Page 1 of 5 Created On Sat Aug 12 00:08:27 IST 2017 C/CRA/524/2016 ORDER learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot, in Special Civil Suit No.115 of 2016 below application Exhibit 22, which had aggrieved the present applicantoriginal plaintiff. The opponent Nos.6 to 9 and the opponent No.16 had objected to such application in writing, however, the opponent Nos.1 to 5 and 10 to 15 had given their consent to the same.
3. The trial Court on considering the provisions of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, did not allow the same by the impugned order.
4. Today before this Court, the original opponent Nos.1 to 5 and 10 to 15 are present who are represented by the learned Senior Counsel Shri Mehul Shah appearing with the learned counsel Shri Nirav Sanghvi, who otherwise before the concerned Court had no objection to such decree being passed. So far as the contesting defendants who are before this Court i.e. the opponent Nos.6 to 9 and 16, are concerned, learned Senior Counsel Shri Anshin Desai appears with the learned counsel Shri Nirad Buch and Shri Mausam Page 2 of 5 HC-NIC Page 2 of 5 Created On Sat Aug 12 00:08:27 IST 2017 C/CRA/524/2016 ORDER Yagnik, as also Shri Amar Mithani, learned counsel appears on behalf of the opponent No.16.
5. One additional affidavit for and on behalf of opponent Nos.6 to 9, who are all present before this Court, has been tendered today, which has been affirmed by the opponent No.6 herein. Further, the opponent No.16 has also filed a separate additional affidavit stating therein that they have entered into an amicable settlement which was arrived at without any coercion, so as to maintain harmonious relationship between the parties.
6. This Court has also verified from these contesting opponents and they also have agreed that the parcel of land is to be allocated to each of them from the land in question. The opponent Nos.6 to 9 are yet to be allocated the land.
7. The opponent No.16 has inter alia stated in his affidavit tendered today as under :
"4. I say and submit that after filing of Page 3 of 5 HC-NIC Page 3 of 5 Created On Sat Aug 12 00:08:27 IST 2017 C/CRA/524/2016 ORDER the captioned petition, the petitioner has resolved the dispute with all the defendants of the Suit including respondents no.6 to 9 and myself. I say and submit that on account of settlement, the respondents no.6 to 9 as well as the Deponent have decided to withdraw their objections which are filed before the learned Trial Court i.e. Exhs.24 and 30 and the Deponent and other respondents are having no objection in the event this Hon'ble Court grants the application filed by the petitioner and allows Exh.22 as prayed for."
8. Considering the fact that this development has taken place, wherein the parties have chosen to amicably settle the dispute where the applicant revisionist has ensured allocation of land to all the contesting respondents i.e. original defendant Nos.6 to 9; and the defendant No.16 being the power of attorney holder, has nothing to be taken from the revisionist. The order of the Court based on the partial compromise would not survive and, therefore, the same is quashed and the parties are relegated to the concerned court for them to make a fresh application in the wake of this development, which the Court shall Page 4 of 5 HC-NIC Page 4 of 5 Created On Sat Aug 12 00:08:27 IST 2017 C/CRA/524/2016 ORDER consider within the time bound schedule of four weeks from the date of making such an application.
9. Shri Mehul Shah and Shri Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respective opponent, do not dispute so far the compromise of opponent Nos.1 to 5 and 10 to 15 is concerned; nor do they in any manner challenge the proceedings that have been followed. It is further submitted that if there is any challenge before the concerned Court, with passage of time, the same would not preclude the trial Court from passing the decree on compromise.
Disposed of accordingly. Direct Service is permitted.
(MS SONIA GOKANI, J.) Aakar Page 5 of 5 HC-NIC Page 5 of 5 Created On Sat Aug 12 00:08:27 IST 2017