Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (0.40 seconds)

Bhemdas Dharmabhai Harijan(Sadhu) vs Satuben Kajabhai Harijan on 15 February, 2022

11. While challenging the said two orders, the petitioners have raised various contentions namely (i) that the plaint presented before the Mamlatdar was not in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 of the Act of 1906; (ii) non framing of issues, which is mandatory; (iii) panchnama in question was not prepared in consonance with the principles of natural justice as the Circle Officer had taken signatures of the panchas on blank papers. The contentions are required to be dealt with, considering the scope and nature of powers exercised by the Mamlatdar under the Act of 1906. Apt would be the judgment in the case of Jay Atul Shah v. Arvindbhai Amrutbhai Patel (supra). The issue before this Court was whether the Mamlatdar's Court under the Act of 1906 and the Collector exercising powers under sub-Section (2) of Section 23 could be said to be a Court and the court subordinate to the High Court. This Court, held and observed that as the Collector, functions under the provisions of the Act of 1906 or any other authorities, cannot be construed as court within the meaning and for the purposes of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure they are not Page 13 of 23 Downloaded on : Sun Apr 24 13:05:57 IST 2022 C/SCA/9542/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/02/2022 the court subordinate to the High Court. The Division Bench has examined all the provisions of the Act of 1906. It has been held and observed that merely because the parties before the Mamlatdar under the Mamlatdars' Courts Act, 1906 are described as 'plaintiff' and 'defendant', forums under the Act do not become the court. It would also be naive to reason that since application lodged before the Mamlatdar is called plaint, the proceedings become judicial proceedings. It has been further held that merely because the Mamlatdar under the Act examines the witnesses and takes evidence in that form or follows some of the procedures of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, it does not make him a court in its technical sense of the term. Relevant paragraphs 5, 6, 6.1, 6.3, 6.4 and 6.8, read thus:
Gujarat High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - S K Vishen - Full Document

Vajabhai Polabhai Kanjariya & vs Prabhubhai Thakershibhai Kanjhariya & ... on 9 August, 2017

12. All the Civil Revision Applications, therefore, being not maintainable under Section 115 of CPC in view of the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Jay Atul Shah & Ors. Vs. Arvindbhai Amrutbhai Patel & Ors. (supra) are dismissed. However, it is Page 13 of 14 HC-NIC Page 13 of 14 Created On Wed Aug 16 22:57:34 IST 2017 C/CRA/346/2015 JUDGMENT clarified that since the Civil Revision Applications are being disposed of on the ground of non-maintainability alone, without examining them on merits, the applicants shall be at liberty to file appropriate proceedings as may be permissible under the law. The interim orders continuing in the Civil Revision Application Nos.346 of 2015, 452 of 2015, 54 of 2016, 294 of 2013, 332 of 2015, 414 of 2016, & 385 of 2015, are continued up to 31.8.2017 to enable the applicants to file appropriate proceedings as may be permissible under the law. The learned Advocates for the applicants shall be entitled to take back the certified copies of the impugned orders on the replacement of the simple copies.
Gujarat High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - B M Trivedi - Full Document

Velora Plywood vs Rava Bhikha Hunbal on 1 May, 2025

5.2 Moreover, learned advocate for the plaintiff has also submitted that even in the application filed under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar Court Act, the defendant has stated that there was some mistake in revenue entries and, therefore, application under Section 5 of the Act was filed. Learned advocate for the plaintiff has relied upon judgment reported in 2017 SCC Online Guj. 2492 [(2018) 59 (2) GLR 1473] Jay Atul Shah (supra), 2024 SCC Online Guj.3043 in the case of Shri Nijanand Jogani Abhiyan Trust vs. Parshottam Narsinhbhai Patel and others and Letters Patent Appeal No.1130 of 2018, Ilaba Page 5 of 13 Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 11:53:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/566/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2025 undefined Devendrasinh Jadeja (supra);
Gujarat High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Patel Bhavikkumar Praveenbhai & 2 vs Harmanbhai Maganbhai Bhoi & ... on 2 August, 2017

In view of the decision dated 21.07.2017 passed  by  the  Division  Bench  in  the   case  of  Jay   Atul   Shah  and   Ors.   Vs.   Arvindbhai   Amrutbhai   Patel   and   Ors.,  learned Advocate Mr.Javed Qureshi for the applicants  seeks   permission   to   withdraw   the   present   Civil  Revision Application with a view to file appropriate  proceedings as may be permissible under the law.
Gujarat High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - B M Trivedi - Full Document

Jayantibhai Galbabhai Prajapati & vs Deputy Collector & 3....Opponent(S) on 4 August, 2017

In view of the decision dated 21.07.2017 passed  by  the  Division  Bench  in  the   case  of  Jay   Atul   Shah  and   Ors.   Vs.   Arvindbhai   Amrutbhai   Patel   and   Ors.,  learned   Advocate   Mr.C.B.Dastoor   seeks   permission   to  withdraw the present Civil Revision Application with a  view   to   file   appropriate   proceedings   as   may   be  permissible under the law.
Gujarat High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - B M Trivedi - Full Document

Sarojben Pathabhai Solanki & vs Harisangbhai Nathubhai Solanki & on 16 August, 2017

In view of the judgement dated 21.7.2017 passed by the Division Bench in Civil Revision Application No.386 of 2015 in case of Jay Atul Shah & Ors. Vs. Arvindbhai Amrutbhai Patel & Orther, the learned Advocate Mr.Mehta for the applicants seeks permission to withdraw the present Civil Application as well as the main Civil Revision Application, with liberty to file appropriate proceedings as may be permissible under the law.
Gujarat High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - B M Trivedi - Full Document

Maganbhai Naagarbhai Gami vs State Of Gujarat & 10....Opponent(S) on 31 August, 2017

In view of the judgement dated 21.7.2017 passed by the Division Bench in Civil Revision Application No.386 of 2015 in case of Jay Atul Shah & Ors. Vs. Arvindbhai Amrutbhai Patel & Ors., Mr.Ankit Bachani, learned Advocate for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw the present Civil Revision Application with liberty to file appropriate proceedings.
Gujarat High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - B M Trivedi - Full Document
1   2 3 Next