Gujarat High Court
Dilipkumar Natwarlal vs Parmanand Natwarlal Kothari on 26 February, 2013
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Bhaskar Bhattacharya
DILIPKUMAR NATWARLAL KOTHARIV/SPARMANAND NATWARLAL KOTHARI C/CA/14126/2012 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 14126 of 2012 In FIRST APPEAL NO. 3991 of 2012 ================================================================ DILIPKUMAR NATWARLAL KOTHARI & 1....Applicant(s) Versus PARMANAND NATWARLAL KOTHARI & 6....Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR NV GANDHI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 2 NOTICE SERVED for the Applicant(s) No. 2 MR ASHOK K PADIA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 5 MR KV SHELAT, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 4 , 6.1 - 6.3 NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 7 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA Date : 26/02/2013 ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA) This is an application for stay in connection with the first appeal preferred by a defendant in a suit for partition.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of this application by directing the parties to maintain status quo as regards existing position, nature and character of the property as on this date. The parties are also restrained from transferring, alienating or encumbering the property in any way until further orders of this Court.
Since the plaintiff respondent has already entered appearance, the appeal be treated as ready as regards service. The learned advocate for the appellants is directed to prepare informal paper book containing plaint, written statements, depositions, exhibits, judgment and decree impugned and the memorandum of appeal presented before this Court including translated version of vernacular documents, if any, within two months from today.
Let the appeal appear one week after reopening of summer vacation.
It appears that the opponent No.7 had died long back during the pendency of the appeal and his name was also deleted vide order dated 17th October, 2007. Therefore, name of the respondent No.7 may be deleted from the cause title of the appeal.
(BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, CJ.) (J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) shekhar Page 2 of 2