Gujarat High Court
Rameshbhai Kalidas Parikh vs State Of Gujarat (Deleted) & 2 on 25 January, 2017
Author: N.V.Anjaria
Bench: N.V.Anjaria
C/SCA/18322/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18322 of 2015
==========================================================
RAMESHBHAI KALIDAS PARIKH....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT (DELETED) & 2....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRASHANT MANKAD, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
DELETED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR HARSHAL M SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR MJ PARIKH, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
SIMPLE M PARIKH, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
Date : 25/01/2017
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned advocate Mr. Prashant Mankad for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. M. J. Parikh for the second respondent and learned advocate Mr. Harshal Shah for the third respondent.
2. The challenge in this petition is directed against order dated 23.09.2015 passed below Exh.6 by the Board of Nominees, Ahmedabad, in Lavad Suit No. 471 of 2012. Thereby, the interim injunction granted as per order dated 14.12.2012 came to be confirmed till final disposal of the Lavad Suit.
3. The Lavad Suit was instituted by the second Page 1 of 4 HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Sat Jan 28 02:21:39 IST 2017 C/SCA/18322/2015 ORDER respondent Co-operative Housing Society on the ground that the petitioner who was a member and resident in Bungalow No.4 of the society, had been carrying out commercial activities under the name of Tulja Estate Private Limited and was running a paying guest- house and a dining hall. The same was without permission of the society, it was the case stated in the suit.
3.1 Affidavit-in-reply was filed by the second respondent and the original plaintiff stating inter alia that an agreement of lease was executed between the petitioner and the third respondent for doing business in the property and that the petitioner has suppressed the material fact in that regard.
4. While granting injunction as per the impugned order, the Board of Nominees concluded on the basis of the documents and material produced before it, that the commercial activity in Bungalow No.4 was indicated. It was stated further that however from which date, the said house was used for commercial activity, was a matter of evidence. The Board of Nominees took into account certain letters from the society and recorded that no Panchnama was carried out. With such findings recored at the interim stage, the Board of Nominees granted the injunction.
5. Having considered the facts and the submissions, the Page 2 of 4 HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Sat Jan 28 02:21:39 IST 2017 C/SCA/18322/2015 ORDER impugned order which is an interim order not deciding the rights of the parties finally and further considering the position that the petitioner has a remedy of going before the Gujarat State Co-operative Tribunal against the impugned order, and also that the petitioner having not been able to show any good ground to persuade the court to entertain the writ petition against the interim order, this petition is not entertained leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedy before the State Co-operative Tribunal.
6. It is observed that this court has not gone into the merits of the case of the petition and the remedy if availed by the petitioner to challenge the order impugned in this petition before the Tribunal, the same shall be decided on its own merits. All the contentions as may be available in law are kept open for both the parties.
7. At this stage, learned advocate for the petitioner requests that since the long time has passed, this Court may direct the Tribunal to consider and decide the proceedings which may be initiated by the petitioner. The request being not unreasonable, while not entertaining this petition, it is observed and directed that if the petitioner files appropriate proceedings as is available in law within a period of four weeks from today, the Tribunal shall consider the same in accordance with law and on merits so as to Page 3 of 4 HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Sat Jan 28 02:21:39 IST 2017 C/SCA/18322/2015 ORDER dispose of it within a period of two months.
The petition stands dismissed.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J.) cmjoshi Page 4 of 4 HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Sat Jan 28 02:21:39 IST 2017