Gujarat High Court
Kantaben Wd/O Mohanbhai Rathod vs Harijan Ashram Sabarmati Trust on 31 January, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/137/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
Reserved On : -17/01/2025
Pronounced On : 31/01/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 137 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
================================================================
KANTABEN WD/O MOHANBHAI RATHOD & ORS.
Versus
HARIJAN ASHRAM SABARMATI TRUST & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR KV SHELAT for LOVE S MODI(8362) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for the Opponent(s) No.
1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,2.1,2.2,2.3,2.4,2.5,2.6,2.7,2.8
G H VIRK(7392) for the Opponent(s) No. 2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
CAV JUDGMENT
1. The present Revision Application has been filed to quash and set aside the order dated 07.03.2024 and order dated 16.12.2023 passed in Appeal from Order No.24 of 2019 whereby the appellate bench of the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad allowed application Exhibit-95 to join third party respondent No.2 in Appeal from Order and also allowed application Exhibit-115 of the appellant to amend the cause title of the appeal memo to join the respondent Page 1 of 26 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Fri Jan 31 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 05:33:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/137/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined No.2 as party defendant and the trustee of respondent No.2 as defendant.
2. The parties are referred to plaintiff and defendant herein. Brief facts leading to the present Revision Application are as under:-
2.1 The plaintiff filed suit HRP Suit No.330 of 2014 with respect to three properties, (property No.1 mentioned in paragraph No.1 of the plaint, S.No.523, T.P. Scheme N.28, F.P. No.704, open land admeasuring 5000 sq. yards.) (Property No.2 mentioned in paragraph No.2 of the plaint, S.No.523, Ward No.83, T.P. Scheme No.28, F.P. No.704, Municipal Tenement No.0530-19-0771-0003-R, admeasuring 90.29 sq. mtr.) (Property No.3 mentioned in paragraph No.3of the plaint, S.No.523, admeasuring 1000 sq. yards), claiming that their predecessor were the tenants of the above referred premises and that the plaintiff stated in the plaint that the owner of the suit premises are defendant No.1 and that the plaintiffs are the tenants of defendant No.1, the plaintiffs have sought relief at para-18 of the plaint for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from taking forcibly the possession of the premises mentioned at para-2 of the plaint, restraining the Page 2 of 26 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Fri Jan 31 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 05:33:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/137/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined defendants from injunction with respect to property mentioned at para-1, the plaintiff has also sought for an injunction that the defendant may not make any alteration with respect to the possession of the premises mentioned at para-2 of the plaint and with respect to the property mentioned at para-1 & 3, the plaintiff sought for an injunction restraining the defendant from making any temporary or permanent construction in the premises.
2.2 In the said suit by an order dated 02.05.2014, the Chamber Judge, Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding the suit premises thereafter, after by parte hearing by an order dated 18.11.2019, the Chamber Judge, Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad partly allowed the said injunction application and granted temporary injunction against the defendant by restraining them from taking away the possession of property mentioned at para-2 of the plaint from the plaintiff and from demolishing the property mentioned at para-2 of the plaint. The relief sought by the plaintiff in respect of the property mentioned at para-1 and 3 of the plaint were rejected and the status quo granted earlier was vacated, to the extent of property mentioned at para-1 and 3 of the application.Page 3 of 26 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Fri Jan 31 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 05:33:35 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/137/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined 2.3 It is also required to be noted here that the property mentioned at para-1 and 3 are open land and property mentioned at para-2 has construction on the said property.
3. The plaintiff intended to challenge the order passed by the Chamber Judge, Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad, on 18.11.2019, an application was given by the plaintiff to stay the order passed on 18.11.2019 and on the same date the said order dated 18.11.2019 was stayed by the Chamber Judge, Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad by an order passed below Exhibit-20 and the said order also specifically mentions that the request for extension of status quo granted by the Chamber Judge, Small Cause Court at Ahmedabad was also rejected by the Chamber Judge.
4. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Small Cause Court below Exhibit-6 in HRP Suit No.330 of 2014, the present applicant/plaintiff filed Appeal from Order No.24 of 2019 on 16.12.2019, wherein the appellate Court by an order below Exhibit-6 directed both the parties to maintain status quo regarding the premises. Thereafter, an application was filed vide Exhibit-95 by defendant No.10 Page 4 of 26 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Fri Jan 31 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 05:33:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/137/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined to be joined as party in Appeal from Order No.24 of 20219 and on 16.12.2023 after hearing both the parties the appellate bench allowed the application and directed defendant No.2 to be joined as party in Appeal from Order No.24 of 2019. On 09.01.2024, the applicant preferred application Exhibit-115 seeking a relief that subject to their rights to challenge the order passed below Exhibit-95, permit the plaintiffs to join third party trust, namely Mahatma Gandhi Sabarmati Memorial Trust as respondent No.10 and by order dated 07.03.2024, the appellate bench allowed the said amendment to be carried out in the appeal memo and also directed the plaintiff to proceed to make necessary amendment in the trial Court proceedings also. Thereafter, on 05.04.2024, the present Civil Revision Application is filed challenging the judgment and order passed by the appellate Court in Appeal from Order No.24 of 2019 passed below Exhibit-95 and 115.
5. Learned advocate for the plaintiff has brought to the notice of this Court that by way of an injunction dated 02.05.2014, the Court has granted status quo to be maintained by the parties and in breach of said status quo order, a registered exchange deed has been executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.10 Page 5 of 26 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Fri Jan 31 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 05:33:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/137/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined
6. It has also been submitted by the advocate for the plaintiff that application was filed on 08.12.2023 by Deputy Collector in Appeal from Order No.24 of 2019, Exhibit-95 and the said application Exhibit-95 has been filed by the Deputy Collector without any resolution of the defendant No.10 - trust.
7. It has also been argued by learned advocate Mr. K.V. Shelat that the Deputy Collector is not the trustee of defendant No.10 - trust. The Vakalatnama produced vide Exhibit-97 in Appeal from Order No.24 of 2019 was also signed by the Deputy Collector, and therefore, it has argued that neither any resolution of the trust giving authority to the Deputy Collector to file the present application is there and as defendant No.10 is a trust and the Deputy Collector is neither the trustee of defendant No.10-trust therefore as per the provisions of law the trustee cannot relegate power to a third party, and therefore, also the said application Exhibit-95 was required to be rejected.
8. It has also been argued by the learned advocate for the plaintiff that deed of exchange is registered on 10.06.2024 and it is only on 10.06.2024 that the defendant Page 6 of 26 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Fri Jan 31 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 05:33:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/137/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined No.10 could be considered as owners of the property, by way of registered exchange deed dated 10.06.2024, and therefore, before 10.06.2024, defendant No.10 could not have given any application to be joined as party, in Appeal from Order No.24 of 2019, and therefore, the application Exhibit-95 dated 08.12.2023 filed by the Deputy Collector could not have been entertained by the First Appellate Court in Appeal from Order No.24 of 2019.
9. Learned advocate Mr. K.V. Shelat for the plaintiff has also drawn attention of the Court, that if documents produced in Appeal from Order are looked into, the same seems to have been signed by resident Deputy Collector giving authority to City Deputy Collector authorizing him to act in furtherance to the pending cases in the Civil Court and Small Causes Court with respect to the litigations that are pending of defendant No.1, and therefore, neither the resident Deputy Collector and the City Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad were ever the trustee of defendant No.10, and therfore, the Deputy Collector could not have given any application to be joined as party defendant No.10.
10. Learned advocate for the plaintiff has argued that Page 7 of 26 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Fri Jan 31 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 05:33:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/137/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined there is no resolution of the trust authorising the Deputy Collector to file an application to be joined in the present proceedings and even if such resolution is there, the fact that the Deputy Collector having given application Exhibit- 95 and having signed the said application and having signed the Vakalatnama on behalf of defendant No.10, and the fact that defendant No.10, is the trust and the fact that the Deputy Collector is not a trustee of defendant No.10 no power could have been given to Deputy Collector to file application for and on behalf of defendant No.10. It has also been argued that at the time when order was passed below Exhibit-95, the Exchange Deed was not produced before the Court.
11. The learned advocate for the plaintiff has also argued that even otherwise defendant No.10 could not be joined as party defendant as they have acted in breach of the order of status quo that has been passed by the Court on 08.11.2024, and therefore, as there was a status quo regarding the premises, the ownership of the property could not have been transferred by way of Exchange Deed, dated 10.06.2024.
12. It has also been argued by learned advocate for the Page 8 of 26 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Fri Jan 31 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 05:33:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/137/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined plaintiff that the status quo with regard to the premises, also includes status quo with respect of ownership, and therefore, the defendant No.1 could not have changed hands by executing Exchange Deed in favour of the defendant No.10. It has also been argued that as the Exchange Deed has been executed in violation of status quo order, therefore, no title or interest was acquired by defendant No.10 and as by way of status quo order, the defendant No.1 was barred from transferring the property to third party, the application for impleading the defendant No.10 as party defendant could not have been allowed in Appeal from Order No.24 of 2019.
13. With respect to fact that plaintiff has application Exhibit-115, it has been argued by learned advocate Mr. K.V. Shelat that as the amendment was to be carried out because of death of some of the trustee of defendant No.1 application Exhibit-115 was filed. Moreover, as the order had been passed below Exhibit-95, the application to join respondent No.10 in Appeal from Order, was filed keeping the rights open of the appellant to challenge the order passed below Exhibit-95, and therefore, it cannot be said that as application Exhibit-115 was filed by plaintiff, he cannot file present Revision Application.
Page 9 of 26 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Fri Jan 31 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 05:33:35 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/137/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined
14. Learned advocate for the plaintiff has relied upon the judgment in the case of Atmaram Ranchhodbhai v. Gulamhusein Gulam Mohiyaddin and another reported in 1972 SCC OnLine Guj 10. Learned advocate for the plaintiff has argued that the above judgment clearly shows that only if there is an authority the application can be filed by the third party for and on behalf of a trust and that the trustee cannot delegate powers of a third party and a third party cannot be joined as party defendant if the third party is claiming right in the property in breach of order passed by Court. Learned advocate for the plaintiff has also tried to state that the definition of status quo would also include all rights in the property including ownrship.
15. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Virk for defendant No.10 has argued that the suit that has been filed by the plaintiff, is for permanent injunction. It is argued that the fact that defendant No.1, who have already executed a registered deed by way of an Exchange Deed in favour of defendant No.10, will have now no concern with respect to dispute in the present case.
16. It has also been argued that the order of status quo Page 10 of 26 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Fri Jan 31 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 05:33:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/137/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined that has been passed does not include restraining defendant No.1 from executing Exchange Deed, whereby the title of the property is exchanged by defendantNo.1 in favour of defendant No.10. It has been argued by learned advocate Mr. Virk for defendant No.10 that the status quo order has to be read and constitute only as to the prayer made in the application for temporary injunction and that the scope of status quo cannot be enlarged. It has also been argued by the appellant that defendant No.10 - trust was registered as trust, bearing No.F-21516/AH under the provisions of Gujarat Public Trust Act, 1950 on 23.09.2021. Thereafter, on 15.06.2022, by way of Government Resolution, issued by the Industries and Mine Department, Government of Gujarat has constituted the Governing Council for defendant No.10 - trust. Thereafter, on 10.10.2023, the Office of Collector authorized the City Deputy Collector to act on behalf of defendant No.10 - trust, in connection with various litigation. Learned advocate for the appellant has brought to the notice of this Court to the oral judgment passed by High Court in Writ-petition (PIL) No.137 of 2021. More particularly, wherein the role of Governing Council is also clearly mentioned as under:-
Page 11 of 26 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Fri Jan 31 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 05:33:35 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/137/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined "107. In light of the aforestated facts, it has to be necessarily concluded that under Government Resolution dated 05.03.2021, the Governing Council and Executive Council is constituted with the sole object of developing Gandhi Ashram Memorial and precincts. Said Governing Council consist of Hon'ble Chief Minister of Gujarat, The Chief Secretary, the Chief Principal Secretary of the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Gujarat, two parliament members, Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development and Urban Housing Department, Principal Secretary Tourism Devsthan Management, Civil Aviation and Pilgrimage, Municipal Commissioner, Ahmedabad, Collector, Ahmedabad, Prominent National Level Gandhians and representatives of respondent Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 trust.
108. The role of the Governing Council as indicated thereunder is to guide the development works of the project by ensuring smooth coordination between the Central Government, State Government, Urban Local Body and formal and informal stakeholders of the project. It envisages : -
To plan, appraise, approve, release funds to executing of the SPV To negotiate and form guidelines for the functioning of the SPV To provide dedicated and substantial revenue stream to the SPV so as to make it self-sustainable To appoint consultants for the preparation of various stages of design and planning for the projects. To approve and sanction the design prepared by the consultants.
The role of the Executive Council is to ensure seamless coordination between the Governing Council and the implementation arm which comprises of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and the Sabarmati Riverfront Development Corporation Limited, Ahmedabad. The role of Executive Council is to implement the guidelines Page 12 of 26 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Fri Jan 31 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 05:33:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/137/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined formulated by the Governing and Executive Council."
17. Learned advocate Mr. Virk has argued that in the facts of the present case, the application Exhibit-95 has been allowed on 16.12.2023, thereafter also on 09.0.2024, the applicant filed application Exhibit-115 in Appeal from Order No.24 of 2019 and the order that has been passed in application Exhibit-115 is dated 07.03.2024, thereafter, also the plainitff has filed application for seeking direction to defendant No.10, for production of legal sale deed before defendant No.1 and defendant No.10 till that time also the present applicant does not challenge the said order passed below Exhibit-95 and it is only thereafter that the present Revision Application is filed on 05.04.2024. It has also been argued by learned advocate Mr. Virk that the status quo order that has been passed is only with respect to the reliefs that have been sought in the plaint and the relief that has been in the plaint are properties mentioned hereinabove as properties Nos.1, 2 & 3.
Therefore, there is no relief whereby the plaintiffs have sought to restrain the defendant, from transferring assigning and/or exchanging the said property to the third party in the present case defendant No.10, and therefore, the said order of the status quo cannot be considered as Page 13 of 26 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Fri Jan 31 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 05:33:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/137/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined stay on the respondent No.1 from exchanging the property in favour of the respondent No.10.
18. Learned advocate Mr. Virk has also drawn attention of this Court to the first order ex parte order passed below Exhibit-6 in HRP No.330 of 2014 dated 02.05.2014 whereby the Court had directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding the suit premises and has also drawn attention of this Court to the final order passed below Exhibit-6 in HRP No.330 of 2014 whereby after hearing both the parties, the Chamber Judge, Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad has granted an injunction restraining the defendant from taking away possession of property (B) from the plaintiff and from demolishing it.
19. Learned advocate Mr. Virk has also canvassed his arguments on the ground that the trial Court keeping in view that property mentioned at para-1 & 3 are open, has rejected the application of injunction and has only protected the plaintiff with respect to the property mentioned in para-2 for the said property as there is construction has restrained the defendant No.1 from taking away possession of the plaintiffs and from demolishing it. It has been further argued that the said prayers are Page 14 of 26 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Fri Jan 31 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 05:33:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/137/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined granted only because there was construction on the property mentioned in para-2 of the plaint, and therefore, Court granted status quo only on the ground of demolition and/or taking away the possession of the plaintiffs from the suit premises with request to property mentioned at para-2 of the plaint.
20. It is also required to be noted that on the date when the trial Court passed an order and an application was moved by the plaintiff to extend the status quo order passed on 02.05.2014 and the trial Court stayed the order dated 18.11.2019 up to the appeal period with a clear observation that the prayer asked for by the plaintiff for extension of status quo gratned earlier is rejected by the trial Court, and thereafter, after filing the Appeal from Order, the status quo order was passed on 16.12.2019 whereby by the parties were ordered to maintain status quo regarding the suit premises, therefore, it has been argued that from 18.11.2019 to 16.12.2019 there was no status quo order with respect to the suit premises.
21. It has been argued that on 30.11.2023, Charity Commissioner under the provisions of section 36 of Gujarat Public Trust Act in application No.36/104/2023 has Page 15 of 26 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Fri Jan 31 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 05:33:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/137/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined allowed the exchange of properties of defendant No.10 and a deed of exchange was executed between defendant No.1 and defendant No.10 which has been registered before Sub Registrar office on 08.12.2023 and it is only after the exchange deed that the application Exhibit-95 has been filed by the respondent No.12. It is also the case of the advocate for respondent No.10 that both respondent No.1 and respondent No.10 had filed an application before the Charity Commissioner for permission under Section 36 and after the said permission from Charity Commissioner has received, the exchange deed has been executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.10, and therefore, the defendant No.10, is a necessary and proper party for adjudicating the dispute.
22. Moreover, it is argued by learned advocate Mr. Virk that the dispute in question is with respect to claim of plaintiff as a tenant for an order restraining the landlord from disturbing the possession of the property and from making any construction in the property and demolishing the suit property and causing hinderance to the plaintiffs possession of the premises as the tenant and how as the defendant No.1 who has already exchanged the property in favour of defendant No.10, the defendant No.10 becomes Page 16 of 26 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Fri Jan 31 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 05:33:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/137/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined the owner of the property, and therefore, defendant No.1 who has now no right in the property, will not be any position to defend suit, and therefore, also for the prayers sought for in the suit, the defendant No.10 is a necessary and proper party and that the Appellate Court in Appeal from Order No.24 of 2019 has rightly allowed the application and joined the respondent No.10 as party defendant.
23. Learned advocate for the respondent No.10 has argued that after giving application Exhibit-115 the plaintiff cannot now state that the order passed in said application which has been filed by the plaintiffs be quashed and set aside. The fact remains that the said application Exhibit-115 has been given voluntarily given by the plaintiff and in the said application the prayers that have been sought are to delete the name of respondent Nos.3 to 8 in the cause title and join respondent Nos.11, 12 and 13 as trustee of respondent No.1 and had also prayed to permit the plaintiff to join third party trust namely Mahatma Gandhi Sabarmati Ashram Memorial Trust as respondent No.10 - trust and its trustee 10/1 to 10/8. It has been argued that it is not in the hands of the plaintiff to challenge the order passed below Exhibit-115 as Page 17 of 26 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Fri Jan 31 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 05:33:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/137/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined the reliefs that have been sought for challenge in the present Reivision is for an order passed in a appliction filed by the plaintiff himself whereby an application Exhibit-115 has been allowed. Therefore, also the application is required to be rejected.
24. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having perused the order passed below Exhibit-95 and 115 and the fact that by way of a permission under section 36 of the Charity Commissioner has allowed the exchange of the property between defendant No.1 and defendant No.10 by an order dated 30.11.2023, and thereafter, by way of Exchange Deed, defendant No.10 executing the said property by registered document on 07.12.2023. The fact remains that defendant No.10 has now become the owner of the property mentioned at para-1 to 3 of the plaint. The suit that has been filed is filed for injunction with respect to the suit property, therefore, there is no dispute with respect to the fact that the plaintiff is a tenant who is claiming to be the tenant of defendant No.1, and therefore, for protection in his tenancy, the reliefs have been sought for in the plaint. There is no dispute that the defendant No.1 was not the owner of the property, and therefore, there is no dispute that plaintiff is claiming any Page 18 of 26 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Fri Jan 31 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 05:33:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/137/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined right title in the property as the owner of the property and there is no dispute of restraining the respondent No.1 from transferring or changing ownership of the property in favour of the defendant No.10. The fact remains that there is no dispute of ownership with respect to the property and there is no relief with respect to restraining the defendant No.1 from transferring the ownership of the premises in favour of third party. The fact also is very clear that the suit that has been filed is for injunction and the fact is that the defendant No.1 having exchange the property and now defendant No.10 will become owner.
25. The fact of Deputy Collector having given the application Exhibit-95 and also the Vakalatnama that has been signed for defendant No.10 through the Deputy Collector will of no relevance as it is not disputed that the Exchange Deed is executed between the respondent No.1 and respondent No.10 and that the respondent No.10 has become owner of the property and the fact that by Government Resolution dated 05.03.2021, the Governing Council and Executive Council are constituted with the sole object of developing Mahatma Gandhi Sabarmati Ashram Memorial Trust. The said Governing Council consisting of Hon'ble Chief Minister of Gujart, Chief Page 19 of 26 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Fri Jan 31 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 05:33:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/137/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined Secretary, Chief Principal Secretary of the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Gujarat, two parliamentary members, Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development and Urban Housing Department, Principal Secretary, Tourism, Civil Aviation Transportation, Municiapal Commissioner, Ahmedabad, Collector Ahmedbad, Prominent National Level Gandhians and representatives of trust mentioned in the PIL No.137 of 2021 and p ursuant to the said resolution, the resident - Collector on order of the Collector had entrusted to the City Deputy Collector and authorized City Deputy Collector to represent in civil suit in the Civil Court and Small Causes Court with respect to the disputed property, and therefore, the said application has been given by the Deputy Collector in the present proceedings. Moreover, the said Collector was also a trustee of Mahatma Gandhi Trust, around October, 2023, and thereafter it cannot be said that he did not have any authority to file the application to join defendant No.10 as party defendant.
26. The arguments canvassed by the learned advocate for the plaintiff that defendant No.10 could not join in the suit as defendant No.10 as the said exchange was in breach of the order of status quo passed in the present proceedings, it is required to be noted that the order of Page 20 of 26 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Fri Jan 31 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 05:33:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/137/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined status quo that has been passed is in respect to the premises and the said relief will have to be read subject to the claim of the plaintiff in the suit and the claim of the plaintiff in the suit is with respect to tenancy rights, and therefore, it cannot be said that by virtue of status quo order, the defendant No.10 could not be joined as party defendant. The judgments on which the plaintiffs are relying also will be of no assistance to the plaintiff as in the facts of the said case Atmaram Ranchhodbhai v. Gulamhusein Gulam Mohiyaddin and another (supra) and the present are different, here the defendant No.10 who has by way of Exchange Deed dated 10.06.2024 has entered the shoes of defendant No.1, has given an application and the persons added alongwith that defendant No.10 are the trustees of defendant No.10. It cannot be said that defendant No.10 has delegated power to a third party. Moreover, it is not a third party who is not a trustee wants to be joined as party defendant but the trustees of defendant No.10 and the trust have been joined as party defendant.
27. The judgments that have been relied on by the plaintiff are as under:-
Page 21 of 26 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Fri Jan 31 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 05:33:35 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/137/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined (A) Satyabrata Biswasa and Others v. Kalyan Kumar Kisku and Others reported in (1994) 2 SCC 266.
(B) Union of India and Others v. B.R. Bajaj and Others reported in(1994) 2 SCC 277.
(C) Thomson Press (India) Limited v. Nanak Builders and Investors Private Limited and Others reported in (2013) 5 SCC 397.
(D) Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation v. Subhash Sindhi Cooperative Housing Socity, Jaipur and Others reported in (2013) 5 SCC 427.
(E) Vidur Impex and Traders Private Limited and others v. Tosh Apartments Private Limited reported in (2012) 8 SCC 384.
(F) Surjit Singh and Others v. Harbans Singh and Others reported in (1956) 6 SCC 50.
(G) Arvind Industries and Others v. State of Gujarat and Others reported in (1956) 6 SCC 53.
(H) Mumbai International Airport Private Limited v.Page 22 of 26 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Fri Jan 31 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 05:33:35 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/137/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Private Limited and Others reported in (2010) 7 SCC 417.
(I) K.K. Ramachandran Master v. M.V. Sreyamakumar and Others reported in (2010) 7 SCC 428.
The said judgment deals of joinder of necessary party in violation of the order and in the present case, the order of status quo does not disentitle the defendant No.1 from entering into the Exchange Deed whereby the disputed properties are coming in the hands of defendant No.10. The fact remains that property mentioned in paragraph Nos.1 and 3 of plaint are open land and property No.2 is a constructed property. The injunction that has been granted is only with respect to dispossession of the plaintiff from the suit property and demolishing the suit property, and therefore, it cannot be said that the Exchange Deed that has been entered into is in violation of the order passed by the trial Court and appellate Court.
The judgment relied on by the respondent in the case of MCC No.354 of 2021 passed by Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur will be of assistance wherein also the Court held that the status quo order has to be read and Page 23 of 26 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Fri Jan 31 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 05:33:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/137/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined construed in relation to the prayer made by way of application for temporary injunction and the scope of the order of status quo cannot be expanded to the other things sought in the prayer made in application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2, therefore also, it cannot be said that the respondent could not have entered into Exchange Deed. Therefore, looking to the fact of the present case and the fact that the defendant No.10 has entered into a registered Exchange Deed after seeking permission from the Charity Commissioner Office and the fact that the suit is filed for injunction and declaration against the landlord and as the present defendant No.10 has now become the owner of the property and defendant No.10 trustes are necessary and proper party in the suit and Appeal from Order. Therefore, the order passed by the first appellate Court below Exhibit-95 & 115 are just and proper and does not require any interference. The said orders are well reasoned order.
28. The fact also remains that after the order passed on 16.12.2023, the plaintiff himself had given an application vide Exhibit-115 on 19.01.2024 to permit the plaintiff to amend the plaint and join defendant No.10 as party defendant after the plaintiff himself had given an application to join defendant No.10 as party defendant, the Page 24 of 26 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Fri Jan 31 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 05:33:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/137/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined plaintiff has now come forward with a case that Exhibit- 115 was given because of the order passed below Exhibit- 95 he had to amend the plaint after filing Exhibit-115 the plaintiff remains silent till 07.03.2024 when the said application Exhibit-115 was allowed, and thereafter, also on 23.03.2024, the plaintiff moved an application to direct the defendant No.10 to produce the docuement with regard to title or interest of defendant No.10 in the suit property, (and therefore, it can be clearly said that it is an afterthought of the plaintiff to file the present Civil Revision Application). It has been argued by the learned advocate for the plaintiff that the said application Exhibit- 115 was filed subject to the right of the plaintiff to challenge the order passed below Exhibit-95 but the fact remains that till the order that has been passed below Exhibit-115 i.e. 07.03.2024, the plaintiff has not filed present Revision Applicationa and even on that ground also the said Revision Application is not maintainable. The fact remains that the defendant No.10 having become the owner of the property and the plaintiff claiming right as a tenant and hence after defendant No.1 has exchanged the suit property in favour of the defendant No.10, it is only defendant No.10, who can defend the suit and the trial Page 25 of 26 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Fri Jan 31 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 05:33:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/137/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined Court can adjudicate the suit on its merits. No reliefs could be adjudicated without the presence of defendant No.10 who is the owner of the premises.
29. In view of the said fact, the present Civil Revision Application is dismissed.
30. In view of the fact that the Appeal from Order is pending since year 2019, it is required that the same is decided by the appellate Court expeditiously and both the parties to cooperate in expeditious disposal of the said Appeal from Order. Notice is discharged. Interim relief stands vacated.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J) After the pronouncement of judgment, learned advocate Mr. K.V. Shelat for the plaintiffs has requested for stay of the said judgment. The stay requested is opposed by learned advocate Mr. Virk for the defendant. In view of the fact that memo of Appeal from Order is already amended and necessary amendment as prayed for in Exhibit-95 & 115 are already carried out and in view of the fact that the Appeal from Order is pending since the year 2019, the said request is rejected.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J) Manoj Kumar Rai Page 26 of 26 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Fri Jan 31 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 05:33:35 IST 2025