Gujarat High Court
Bhimabhai Prabhatbhai Rabari vs General Manager Of Sabarmati Ashram ... on 6 July, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 GUJ 733
Author: Biren Vaishnav
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
C/SA/12/2020 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 12 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE) NO. 1 of 2019
In R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 12 of 2020
================================================================
BHIMABHAI PRABHATBHAI RABARI
Versus
GENERAL MANAGER OF SABARMATI ASHRAM GAUSHAL TRUST
A.K.SING EX OFFICIO AND TRUSTEES
================================================================
Appearance:
MR NM KAPADIA(394) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
for the Respondent(s) No. 2,5
DELETED(20) for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4,6,7
MR JIGAR M PATEL(3841) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Date : 06/07/2020
COMMON ORAL ORDER
1. Draft amendment is allowed, as prayed for.
2. This appeal under Sec.100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the appellants who were the original defendants in the suit. The appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 31.1.2019 passed by the Principal District Judge, Kheda @ Nadiad in Regular Civil Appeal No.46 of 2010 which was filed by the appellants, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 14.2.2005 issued by the Civil Court in Regular Civil Suit No.127 of 1993 which was filed by the appellants. Since the appellants lost in both the Courts below, the Page 1 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 21 23:16:26 IST 2021 C/SA/12/2020 ORDER present appeal.
3. Heard Mr.Nisarg Shah, learned advocate for Mr.N.M. Kapadia, learned advocate for the appellants and Mr.Dhaval Dave, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr.Jigar M. Patel, learned advocate for the respondents - original plaintiffs - Sabarmati Ashram Gaushala - respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein.
4. Short facts in this appeal are that the original plaintiff - respondent Sabarmati Ashram Gaushala through its trustees filed a suit to recover possession from the defendants / original appellants. It is the case of the plaintiff that the trust is a Public Charitable Trust with the object to look after different kinds of cows. The trust has agricultural land situated at village Bidaj, Taluka Mahemdabad and the said agricultural lands have been exempted u/S.88B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 and the entry to that effect has been mutated in the revenue records. The case of the respondent herein - original plaintiff was that the tenancy expired and, therefore, a notice of eviction has been issued on 17.12.1991. The trial Court, after examining the issues, wherein the appellants did not Page 2 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 21 23:16:26 IST 2021 C/SA/12/2020 ORDER remain present decreed the suit in favour of the respondents herein.
4.1 On an appeal being filed by the appellants before the Principal District Judge, Kheda @ Nadiad, the appellants appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court at Nadiad was confirmed.
5. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal.
6. Though several substantial questions of law have been framed by the appellants, by way of a draft amendment which I have granted today, essentially the following questions of law were argued. The substantial questions of law read as under:
(a) Whether the suit for taking back of possession from the tenant was maintainable before the Hon'ble Civil Court; instead of availing the remedy under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act? More specifically when there is a bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Courts under Secs.85 and 85(A) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. Further whether both the Courts below erred in Page 3 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 21 23:16:26 IST 2021 C/SA/12/2020 ORDER proceeding with the suit and upholding the verdict; more particularly when the trial Court as well as the appellate Court had framed the issues of determining that whether the land was exempted u/S.88B. Having mindful about the fact that the matter pertains to the subject matter of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, the Hon'ble Civil Courts should not have exercised its jurisdiction.
(b) Whether the Court below was justified in holding that the appellants / original defendants are not deemed tenants, more specifically when there is admission on the part of the respondents / original plaintiffs that the defendants were tenants and were asked to handover the possession by issuing notice u/S.84 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code?
(c) Whether can it be said that Sabarmati Gaushala; which has received the land under a gift deed dated 10.7.1979, from Harijan Trust;
subsequent to the grant of exemption certificate obtained by Harijan Trust u/ Page 4 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 21 23:16:26 IST 2021 C/SA/12/2020 ORDER S.88B on 8.8.1958; has automatically become the holder of the certificate issued in the year 1958 u/S.88B?
(d) Whether both the Courts below were justified in determining that the plaintiffs possessed a valid exemption certificate issued u/S.88B?
7. Mr.Nisarg Shah, learned counsel for the appellants would argue that the Courts below committed an error of law, inasmuch as, a Civil Suit was clearly barred under the provisions of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. Reliance was placed on Secs.85 and 85(A) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 in support of the contention that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide an issue when the same was clearly and specifically barred by Sec.85 of the Tenancy Act. According to Mr.Shah, the issue under the Tenancy Act could not have therefore been adjudicated by the trial Court.
(A) As a continued limb of his argument, Mr.Shah would submit that the fact that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court has framed the issue of determining that whether Page 5 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 21 23:16:26 IST 2021 C/SA/12/2020 ORDER the land was exempted u/S.88B of the Tenancy Act showed that the trial Court was aware of the proceedings being in the nature of tenancy proceedings and the suit therefore could not have been entertained.
(B) The other submission of Mr.Shah was that it was not open for the Court to hold that the appellants were not deemed tenants when it was a specific admission of the plaintiffs respondents herein that they were asked to handover possession under the provisions of Sec.84 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. Mr.Shah invited the attention of the Court to page No.59 of a separate paper book filed with the appeal memo in which reliance was placed on a notice issued by the Sabarmati Ashram Gaushala asking them to handover possession of such property. Mr.Shah would invite the attention of the Court to Sec.90 of the Tenancy Act to contend that the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code shall cease to apply to tenancies to which the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 would apply. He would therefore submit that Sec.84 notice which was read out page 59 of the paper book was not maintainable. Mr.Shah would also contend relying on Sec.29 of the Tenancy Act Page 6 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 21 23:16:26 IST 2021 C/SA/12/2020 ORDER to submit that the procedure of taking possession was prescribed thereunder and such a procedure as undertaken by resorting to notice u/S.84 could not have been taken by the respondents - original plaintiffs particularly looking to the definition of deemed tenant u/S.4 of the Act.
8. Inviting my attention to page No.25 of the paper book which had a gift deed, Mr.Shah would contend that the trust and the Gaushala are distinct and different identities. Moreover, he would suggest by extensively relying on the appeal memo that since the appellants were protected tenants having become deemed purchasers on 1.4.1957, the certificate u/S.88B the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 which was obtained on 8.8.1958 (Page No.57 of the Paper Book), Paper Book has no force of law. The appellants having become deemed tenants the land certificate obtained u/S.88B had no legal force and, therefore, Sabarmati Ashram Gaushala did not have any title to the land in question.
9. A civil application for additional evidence has been filed and reading out the provisions of O-41.R-27 and relying on paragraph No.17 Page 7 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 21 23:16:26 IST 2021 C/SA/12/2020 ORDER of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2008(5) SCC 444, Mr.Shah would contend that additional evidence can be led.
10. Mr.Dhaval Dave, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr.Jigar M. Patel, learned advocate for the respondents - original plaintiffs vehemently contended that the present contentions which have been raised by the appellants in this appeal, were never raised either before the Civil Court or before the Appellate Court. Drawing my attention to the relevant paragraphs of the judgment and decree of the trial Court as well as that of the appellate Court, Mr.Dave would contend that despite having been served, the respondents / appellants herein did not appear before the trial Court. Inviting my attention to the body of the judgment of the appellate Court, Mr.Dave would contend that even before the appellate Court, the questions raised herein were never argued by the appellants.
11. Mr.Dave drawing the attention of this Court to Sec.88B of the Tenancy Act would submit that the provisions of Chapter 6 & 8 would not apply and the fact that whether the gift deed is valid or not is a issue of fact which Page 8 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 21 23:16:26 IST 2021 C/SA/12/2020 ORDER was never disputed by the respondents - original defendants before the trial Court. Mr.Dave also submitted that the question that has been raised in this appeal, is now no longer in dispute by way of several decisions rendered by this Court in the judgments that he has sought to rely on. He has relied on the decisions of this Court in the case of Sabarmati Ashram Gaushala v. Bhailalbhai Nathabhai reported in 2014 JX (GUJ)57. Reliance is placed on paragraph No.12 thereof. Reliance is also placed on a decision of this Court in the case of Ravjibhai Vithhalbhai Tadvi v. Sabarmati Ashram Gaushala reported in 2017 JX (Guj)
282. Lastly reliance is placed on a decision in the case of Punambhai Hirabhai Thakore v. Sabaramati Ashram Gaushala in Second Appeal 177 of 2015 decided by this Court on 2.9.2015. He would also rely on a decision in the case of Hero Vinoth (Minor) v. Seshammal reported in 2006 (5) SCC, 545 Head Note B to submit that once substantial questions of law have been decided and covered, they equally apply to the case on hand.
12. This Court has an assistance to the judgment delivered by the coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Punambhai Hirabhai Page 9 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 21 23:16:26 IST 2021 C/SA/12/2020 ORDER Thakore (Supra) dated 2.9.2015 in Second Appeal 177 of 2015. The same is reproduced hereunder:
"1. The appellants - tenants under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 being aggrieved by the dismissal of appeal i.e. Regular Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2007 has filed the present appeal.
2. At the time of initial hearing, the question arose whether the respondent - trust is in fact exempted under Section 88B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act or not ? The Court has asked the respondent - trust to produce a copy of the exemption certificate. Time was granted by the Court to produce a copy of the exemption certificate on the next date of hearing. The learned advocate for the respondent
- trust has shown the exemption certificate issued by the authority.
3. The learned advocate for the appellants objected to this certificate urging that the respondent - trust should file and produce the same along with the affidavit. This submission was not possible to accept since at the instance of the Court, the respondent - trust has produced the said certificate.
Today, the learned advocate for the appellants has made detailed submissions. The learned advocate for the appellants submitted that the Page 10 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 21 23:16:26 IST 2021 C/SA/12/2020 ORDER certificate issued is doubtful as it is a xerox copy and it is not a xerox copy of the original. It does not bear any signature or date. Therefore, the certificate is not in the nature of inspiring confidence. Further, it was submitted that there is distinction in the name of the respondent - trust. In other words, the certificate issued to the trust, which bears another name and the respondent before this Court is different trust. Further the purpose for which the certificate is issued is only for education purpose and, therefore, the respondent - trust cannot rely upon the same herein. The principal submission of the learned advocate for the appellants is whether the appellants is monthly tenant or yearly tenant is to be decided exclusively by the revenue authority i.e. the Mamlatdar under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. In this regard, learned advocate for the appellants has relied upon the decision of Apex Court in the case of GundAji SAtwAji Shinde v. RAmchAndrA BhikAji Joshi reported in AIR 1979 SC
653.
4. On the other hand, learned senior advocate Mr. Dave has submitted that the present appellants have moved the revenue authority as early as in the year 1979 to declare him as a deemed purchaser on the ground that they are tenants. The appellants application came to be rejected on the ground that the respondent - trust is exempted under the Act. The said order of the Mamlatdar of rejecting the appellants application came to be final. The said order was not carried further by the appellants. Thereafter, the present respondents have moved the Page 11 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 21 23:16:26 IST 2021 C/SA/12/2020 ORDER revenue authority for eviction of the appellants. The respondents application came to be rejected by the Mamlatdar holding that since the respondent - trust is exempted, only the Civil Court has jurisdiction. The order of the Mamlatdar was carried before the Collector. The Collector rejected the appellants application on the same ground and thereafter the present respondent has filed Civil Suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 132 of 1993. Therein, the decree was passed in favour of the present respondents. The said order was carried in appeal and the appellate Court has confirmed the order of the learned trial Court and has dismissed the appeal.
5. In the circumstances of the case, suspicion and doubt expressed by the learned advocate for the appellants about the genuineness of the certificate, this Court at this stage in this proceeding would not consider. Prima facie, objections in this regard are of technical nature. The principal submission of the learned advocate for the appellants is whether the appellants are monthly tenant or yearly tenant is to be decided by the revenue authority namely the Mamlatdar and though this question was raised before the lower Court, the Courts below instead of referring the suit to the Mamlatdar, has proceeded to decide the suit and, therefore, there is apparent illegality committed by both the Courts. The learned advocate has drawn attention of the Court to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Gundaji Satwaji Shinde (supra), more particularly paragraph nos. 8, 9 and 18.Page 12 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 21 23:16:26 IST 2021 C/SA/12/2020 ORDER
6. It is not possible to agree with the submissions of the learned advocate for the appellants. If the respondent - trust is exempted under the Act, there is no question of deciding the nature of tenancy of the appellants. Secondly, learned senior advocate Mr. Dave has drawn attention that this Court in the matter of Sabarmati Ashram Trust v. Bhailalbhai Nanabhai i.e. in the case of the the present appellants itself has considered Section 85 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act and has held that the Civil Court is competent to decide the issue. The order of this Court was carried before Apex Court by the appellants and Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 6203 of 2014 came to be rejected by the Apex Court.
7. In view of the above circumstances of the case, the question raised namely the appellants are the monthly tenant or yearly tenant ought to be decided by the Mamlatdar and non deciding of that by that authority vitiate the proceeding cannot be accepted.
8. There is no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of two Courts below. Hence, the second appeal is summarily rejected.
9. At the request of the learned advocate for the appellants, it is clarified that it would be open for the appellants to take appropriate action in accordance with law, as Page 13 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 21 23:16:26 IST 2021 C/SA/12/2020 ORDER available to the appellants.
At this stage, the learned advocate for the appellants prays for operation of this order for a period of six weeks. The learned senior advocate Mr. Dave seriously objects to this prayer and submits that in the circumstance, the appellants does not deserve stay of operation of the order of this Court. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the operation of this order is stayed for a period of four weeks from todAy. The parties shall maintain status quo till then.
10. In view of the order passed in the appeal, this civil application will not survive and the same is dismissed."
13. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, it will be in the fitness of things to consider the submissions of learned advocates on the question of law raised and in brief which have been reproduced hereinabove. On the question of Sec.85 as to the bar of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court vis-a-vis the tenancy Act are concerned, it is not in dispute that the certificate u/S.88B issued to the respondent - Sabarmati Ashram Gaushala has never been challenged by the respondents
- defendants - appellants herein. The provisions of Section 88B(b) when read Page 14 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 21 23:16:26 IST 2021 C/SA/12/2020 ORDER clearly provide an exemption to certain provisions where the lands belong to the property of the trust or a Panjarapol as is the case on hand. What also needs to be considered is that nowhere have the defendants / appellants raised the issue that they are deemed purchasers with effect from 1.4.1957. Therefore, it is not the case of the respondents - defendants - appellants that they are deemed purchasers. On this question, this Court in the decision of Sabarmati Ashram Gaushala (Supra), the Court has considered the provisions as to the barring of the suit vis-a-vis Sec.50 of the Bombay Public Trust Act as well as Sec.88 and held as under:
"12.1 Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, this Court finds that, the foundation of the appeal before the Court below, by the original defendant No.1, about the competence of the Civil Court to try the present subject matter, was ill-founded, on merits as well as in procedure - both. It needs to be recorded that, the issues framed by the Trial Court were, as quoted in Para-4 above, which does not contain this aspect. It is the settled position of law that, if proper issues are not framed, or issues Page 15 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 21 23:16:26 IST 2021 C/SA/12/2020 ORDER framed are defective or incomplete, or not capable of making a point certain, it is upto the parties to move the Court to get the issues rightly framed. If the parties do not do so and lead evidence and invite the findings of the Court, they can not be allowed to find fault with the issues before appellate or revisional Court so as to circumvent his failure before the Court. Reference in this regard can be made to the decision of this Court in the case of Suryakant Kanji Bheda versus Hemlataben Indukumar Rajania reported in 1998(2) GLR 1650, more particularly Para-7 thereof. Keeping these principles in view, this Court finds that, the objection of the original defendant No.1 as contained in the first issue framed by the Appellate Court below, as quoted in Para-6 above, could not have been permitted by the Appellate Court below. The Appellate Court below has reversed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, on an issue, which was not the issue before the Trial Court. On this count alone, the present appeal could have been disposed of, without going into the contentions raised by learned advocate for the respondent before this Court. Reference in this regard can also be made to the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India and others versus Kartar Kaur reported in (2012) 12 SCC 505. However, even if these contentions are to be examined on merits, none of them is well founded, as discussed hereinafter.Page 16 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 21 23:16:26 IST 2021 C/SA/12/2020 ORDER
12.2 So far the contention regarding Section 80 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 is concerned, it can not have any play in the facts of this case, since Charity Commissioner could not adjudicate the point at issue. Further, the perceived violation of Sections 50 and 51 of the said Act, is also misconceived, in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Nadiad Nagarpalika (supra). The notice given to the defendant is on record, and in no uncertain terms, it is a notice given by and on behalf of the appellate Trust. Further, the document Exh.71 which is the certificate of registration, also in no uncertain terms identifies the appellant Trust with this very name.
Ex-facie these contentions are
inconsistent with record and in any
case, it is an after-thought, since
before the Courts below, these were
not only not raised, but are
recorded as undisputed position.
Thus, the contentions raised on
behalf of the respondent are not
well-founded and are rejected. So
far the judgments relied by learned
advocate for respondent No.1 are
concerned, there can not be any
dispute with regard to the
proposition of law enunciated in
these judgments, however, none of
these judgments would take the case
of the respondent No.1 any further
keeping in view the undisputed
facts which are stated above.
Further, these contentions are being
raised for the first time before
this Court in this Second Appeal
and therefore, the view expressed
by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of
Page 17 of 21
Downloaded on : Sun Feb 21 23:16:26 IST 2021
C/SA/12/2020 ORDER
India in the case of Union of India and others versus Kartar Kaur reported in (2012) 12 SCC 505, which is referred above, will come in the way of respondent No.1 with regard to these contentions as well.
12.3 Coming to the substantial questions of law, as quoted in Para-2 above, it needs to be recorded that, it is not in dispute that the competent Authority has issued exemption certificate under Section 88-B of the Tenancy Act in favour of the plaintiff Trust. It is also not in dispute that the defendant is not declared as a tenant under the said Act. In view of this, the Forum under the Tenancy Act were not competent to go into the issue, which is the subject matter of this litigation.
Thus, only Civil Court could have
gone into it. Further, this issue
is already concluded by this Court
in the case of Arya Satyadev
Dhanjibhai versus Bhailalbhai
Ishwarbhai reported in 1972 GLR 398. This was even pointed out to the Appellate Court below and the same is referred as Item No.1 in Para-17 of the judgment of the Appellate Court below. By taking a view different than it, the Appellate Court below has committed a grave error of law, which goes to the root of the matter and which has also resulted into miscarriage of justice. First two of the three questions of law which are quoted above, are inter-connected and are answered by the ratio of the decision of this Court in the case of Arya Satyadev Dhanjibhai (supra) Page 18 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 21 23:16:26 IST 2021 C/SA/12/2020 ORDER and thus, both the questions are answered in affirmative. So far the third question is concerned, specific reference can be made to Para-16 of the very same judgment and in view of it, even the third question is answered in affirmative. Thus, all the three questions are answered in affirmative."
14. Reading the judgment in the case of Sabarmati Ashram Gaushala (Supra) what is evident is that once the existence of the certificate under Sec.88B was never disputed by the parties and when it is a specifically the case in hand, as held in the case of Ravjibhai Vithhalbhai Tadvi (Supra) from paragraph No.7 thereof which reads as under
that the certificate is institution centric and not land centric.
"7. As could be seen from the background of the facts and the questions of law, it can hardly be said to be questions of law much less any substantial question of law. The background of the facts as discussed herein above has a reference to the claim for the tenancy right under the Tenancy Act for which the Tenancy Case No. 33 of 1993 was initiated which came to be dismissed referring to the earlier proceedings and resjudicata. Further, as could be seen from the judgment of the trial Court as well as the first appellate court, the fact remains that the certificate of exemption under Section 88(B) of the Tenancy Act has been granted in favour of the Respondent Trust. The provisions Page 19 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 21 23:16:26 IST 2021 C/SA/12/2020 ORDER of Section 88(B)(b) of the Tenancy Act clearly provides for exemption in view of the fact that the land belong to the Respondent Trust and therefore what is required to be considered is the exemption qua the institution and not the land. Therefore, the exemption in respect of the land belonging to the Trust is granted, which has also been believed and accepted with reference to the entries made in the revenue record, and it is too late now in the light of the day to permit to agitate any such questions in the present Second Appeal."
15. The argument that the land survey No.1181 was part and parcel thereof and, therefore, the gift deed was disputed also does not merit consideration. In Second Appeal No.177 of 2015 dated 2.9.2015 in the case of Punambhai Hirabhai Thakore (Supra), the entire judgment as referred to hereinabove have been considered by the Hon'ble Court and it is held that the Civil Court is competent to decide the issue.
16. Even considering the decisions as aforesaid as also in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hero Vinoth (Minor) (Supra), paragraph No.20 of which reads as under, no substantial questions of law arise in the present appeal.
"20. The question of law raised will not be considered as a substantial question of law, if it stands already Page 20 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 21 23:16:26 IST 2021 C/SA/12/2020 ORDER decided by a larger Bench of the High Court concerned or by the Privy Council or by the Federal Court or by the Supreme Court. Where the facts required for a point of law have not been pleaded, a litigant should not be allowed to raise that question as a substantial question of law in second appeal. There mere appreciation of facts, the documentary evidence or the meaning of entries and the contents of the documents cannot be held to be raising a substantial question of law. But where it is found that the first appellate court has assumed jurisdiction which did not vest in it, the same can be adjudicated in the second appeal, treating it as a substantial question of law. Where the fact appellate court is shown to have exercised its discretion in a judicial manner, it cannot be termed to be an error either of law or of procedure requiring interference in second appeal. This Court in Reserve Bank of India v. Ramkrishna Govind Morey (1976 (1) SCC 803) held that whether the trial court should not have exercised its jurisdiction differently is not a question of law justifying interference. ([See: Kondiba Dogadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar and Others (1999(3) SCC 722)]."
17. In view of above the Appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the main matter, connection Civil Application for additional evidence does not survive and the same stands disposed of accordingly.
[BIREN VAISHNAV, J.] VATSAL / MEHUL Page 21 of 21 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 21 23:16:26 IST 2021