Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.52 seconds)
Documents citing Hargovan Keshav vs Mansing Thakorbhai on 3 March, 2000

Pankajkumar vs Bavaji on 10 September, 2008

In the case of Hargovan Keshav (supra), the learned Judge of this Court found that the defendant was taking an inconsistent stand of tenancy on one hand and ownership on the other. It was in this background, that even while observing that on plain reading of section 85, it is clear that the Civil Court is bound to refer the issue regarding tenancy to Mamlatdar and cannot insist that the party must establish prima facie case, it was further observed that this does not mean that as and when such a plea is raised, the Court without applying mind must refer the same to the Mamlatdar.
Gujarat High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - A Kureshi - Full Document

Pankajkumar vs Bavaji on 15 November, 2011

In the case of Hargovan Keshav (supra), the learned Judge of this Court found that the defendant was taking an inconsistent stand of tenancy on one hand and ownership on the other. It was in this background, that even while observing that on plain reading of section 85, it is clear that the Civil Court is bound to refer the issue regarding tenancy to Mamlatdar and cannot insist that the party must establish prima facie case, it was further observed that this does not mean that as and when such a plea is raised, the Court without applying mind must refer the same to the Mamlatdar.
Gujarat High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - A Kureshi - Full Document

Mangalbhai Kanjibhai Parmar vs Jethabhai Dhulabhai Thakor on 3 July, 2018

In my opinion when the judgement in the case of Hargovan Keshav (supra) is seen, the Court has to consider whether the discretion has been exercised by the Court in accordance with law. Provisions of Order 14 Rules 1 to 5 of the Code explicitly make it clear that even on the basis of the pleadings in the written statement, the Court can frame an additional issue and need not desist from doing so merely because documents do not so suggest a stand which has otherwise been pleaded by the defendant in the written statement. In the facts of the case, when a specific pleading has been made by the defendant with regard to his tenancy rights, the application made at Ex. 68 for framing an additional issue that "does the defendant prove that before Page 12 of 13 C/SCA/14471/2015 JUDGMENT the land was mortgaged with him whether the defendant in such land was a tenant and had therefore the present suit ought to be referred to the tenancy Court under Section 85A of the Tenancy Act?" should have been granted and the additional issue as prayed for should have been added to the issues already framed by the trial Court at Ex. 22.
Gujarat High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - B Vaishnav - Full Document
1