Quashed

Ramesh Kedarnath Sharma v. Omprakash Sohanlal Jadav

Gujarat HC14 Jun 2018SCA/13879/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment quashed an order of the Small Causes Court rejecting an interim application for restraint. The court found the Trial Court's observation on lack of documentary evidence erroneous in light of municipality bills showing the petitioner as an occupier, directing the respondents to not forcibly take possession.

What did the court decide?

The order of the Trial Court rejecting Application Exhibit 5 was quashed; respondents were restrained from forcibly taking possession pending the suit's decision.

Ramesh Kedarnath Sharma Vs Omprakash Sohanlal Jadav — Property and Title | Gujarat HC (2018)

¶1

C/SCA/13879/2014 JUDGMENT

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13879 of 2014

¶4

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

¶5

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

¶6

==========================================================

¶7

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶8

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

¶9

3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?

¶10

4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?

¶11

==========================================================

¶12

RAMESH KEDARNATH SHARMA

¶13

Versus

¶14

OMPRAKASH SOHANLAL JADAV

¶15

==========================================================

¶16

Appearance:

¶17

MR ZUBIN F BHARDA(159) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 DS AFF.NOT FILED (R)(71) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2 SERVED BY RPAD (R)(66) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1

¶18

==========================================================

¶19

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

¶20

Date : 14/06/2018

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

1.This petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, challenges the order dated
09.01.2013 passed by the learned Additional Judge

¶23

Page 1 of 4

¶24

C/SCA/13879/2014 JUDGMENT

¶25

Small Causes Court, Surat by which the
Application Exhibit 5 was rejected.

¶26

2. The facts in brief are as under:

¶27

2.1The petitioner filed aforesaid suit praying
for declaration and permanent injunction that he
may not be dispossessed in respect of shop No.5
situated at Udhna, Udhyog Nagar Sangh, Surat. It
was the case of the petitioner that the father of
respondent No.2, Shri. Roshanlal had given the
said shop on rent. The petitioner was running a
hair cutting salon in the name and style of
Ganesh Hair Art. The petitioner further stated in
the plaint that on the death of Roshanlal,
respondent No.1 Omprakash entered as an owner.
Apprehendingforcefuldispossessionfrom
respondent No.1, the rent suit was filed.

¶28

2.2In that suit the petitioner preferred an
application Exhibit 5. praying that pending such
suit, the defendants be restrained from taking
over possession of the shop. By the impugned
order dated 09.01.2013, the learned Trial Judge
rejected the said application.

¶29

3.Mr.Zubin Bharda, learned counsel for the
petitioner has drawn my attention to the bill
issued by the Surat Municipality which shows the
name of the occupier as Ganesh Hair Art. He has
further drawn my attention to the findings of the

¶30

Page 2 of 4

¶31

C/SCA/13879/2014 JUDGMENT

¶32

learned Trial judge wherein, the learned Trial
Judge has observed that there is no documentary
evidence to show that the petitioner was
occupying the shop since 1998.

¶33

4.No one has appeared for the respondent
defendant to appose this petition.

¶34

5.On a Perusal of various bills placed on
record, which were part of the evidence before
the Trial Court, it is apparent that the findings
of the learned Trial Judge observing that there
is no documentary proof suggesting that the
petitioner was occupying the shop is apparently
erroneous. Pending the petition, it is not in
dispute that the petitioner by virtue of the
interim relief operating in his favour is still
in possession of the shop.

¶35

6.In the result, therefore, having found that
the learned Trial Court committed an error in
observing that there was no documentary evidence
to suggest the petitioner’s occupation whereas,
in fact the bills on record of the municipality
corporation suggest the name of the petitioner as
occupier, the order of the learned Trial Judge
below Exhibit 5 in Small Cause Suit No.76 of 2012
is quashed and set aside. It is directed that the
respondents-original defendants be restrained
from forcibly taking possession of the suit shop
from petitioner pending the final decision in

¶36

Page 3 of 4

¶37

C/SCA/13879/2014 JUDGMENT

¶38

Small Cause Suit(rent)No.76 of 2012. Since the
hearing of the suit has been stayed pending this
petition, learned Trial Judge is requested to
expeditiously hear and decide the same preferably
within one year from the date of receipt of the
writ of this Court. Rule is made absolute. There
shall be no order as to costs.

¶39

(BIREN VAISHNAV, J)

¶40

N.V.MEWADA

¶41

Page 4 of 4

Ramesh Kedarnath Sharma v. Omprakash Sohanlal Jadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Kedarnath Sharma v. Omprakash Sohanlal Jadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanjibhai Dalsukhbhai Solanki Vs Rajubhai Ranchhodbhai Sampat

Sushilaben B Shah Vs Premaben Buddising Gupta Since Deceased through Legal Heirs

Rana Project International Limited Vs Gayatri Polymers and Geosynthetics

Ramesh Kedarnath Sharma Vs Omprakash Sohanlal Jadav

Nilima Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Manojkumar Agrawal

Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Deepakkumar Vinubhai Thaker