Gujarat High Court
B vs Pankajkumar on 26 December, 2011
Author: R.M.Chhaya
Bench: R.M.Chhaya
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/18384/2011 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 18384 of 2011
=========================================================
B
M.RAJPUT THRO POA PUSHPABEN B CHAUHAN (RAJPUT) - Petitioner(s)
Versus
PANKAJKUMAR
CHAMPAKLAL JINWALA & 6 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
HARSHADRAY A DAVE for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
7.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
Date
: 26/12/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner-original plaintiff has challenged the legality and validity of the order passed below Exh. 146 in Regular Civil Suit No. 1230 of 991 dated 28.9.2011.
2. The facts arising out of this petition are summed up as under.
3. That the petitioner-original plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 1230 of 1991 for permanent injunction and declaration against the respondent in relation to the suit property situated at village Modesara, Taluka Choryasi, District Surat. By application Exh. 146 and the pending suit the petitioner applied for issuing summons against the following persons :
(1) Kantibhai R. Patel, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Bamroli.(2)
Conversant person from the office of District Registrar, Cooperative Society.
(3) Zonal Officer, South Zone.
Surat Municipal Corporation, Udhna.
(4) Chairman, Surat Urban Development Authority (SUDA).
(5) Smt. S.J.Tikiwala, appointed as Court Commissioner.
(6) Sarang Studio, Bhaga Talav, (through its conversant person).
(7) Gheeweala Studio (through its conversant person).
4. It is the case of the petitioner-original plaintiff that earlier because of the illness of the plaintiff, the application for issuing witness summons could not be filed against the above seven persons. On that ground, application below Exh. 146 came to be filed. The trial Court after hearing both the sides vide impugned order dated 28.9.2011 was pleased to partly allow the said application and issued witness summons against Smt. S.J.Tikiwala, the Court Commissioner as well as Sr.Nos. 6 and 7 i.e. Sarang Studio as well as Gheewala Studio. However, the Court below dismissed the same qua the persons named at Sr.Nos. 1 to 4 enumerated in application below Exh. 146. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present petition.
5. Mr. Dave, learned Counsel for the petitioner has taken this Court through application below Exh. 146 as well as the impugned order in this petition. Mr. Dave pointed out that the controversy involved in the main suit is regarding lay out plan of construction in common open plot and the parties have relied upon the documents which are concerning the persons enumerated at Sr.Nos. 1 to 4 i.e. concerned Gram Panchayat, District Registrar, Cooperative Department, Surat Municipal Corporation as local authority as well as Surat Urban Development Corporation as the appropriate (development) authority and therefore the trial Court has not appreciated this fact and has wrongly come to the conclusion that the representatives from those four bodies are not required to be examined.
6. Upon perusing the order impugned, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the documents which are in possession of the panchayat, District Registrar, Cooperative, Surat Municipal Corporation and the Development Authority (SUDA) are all statutory bodies and that the documents which are in possession of such statutory bodies are to be produced on record and copy of such documents can be easily obtained by the application on payment of requisite fee and true copies of such documents can also be obtained and that the said documents are public documents. The trial Court is correct in coming to the conclusion that in order to prove the same it is not necessary to issue witness summons for the persons enumerated at Sr. Nos. 1 to 4. Thus, the trail Court has not committed any error which requires to be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution. It would be open for the petitioner to take appropriate recourse for the same as and when the occasion arises. The petition is rejected in limine with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
(R.M. Chhaya, J.) M.M.BHATT Top