Dismissed

Premjibhai Kanjibhai Prajapati v. Haribhai Jivrajbhai Gohil

Gujarat HC12 Jun 2018SCA/16502/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Ahmedabad disposed of a special civil application challenging a District Court rejection of a jurisdiction plea on delay grounds. The High Court conceded the petition ceased since the respondent withdrew the District appeal. It declined to decide on delay merits, leaving room for condonation. Ad interim relief was vacated.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of as withdrawn; Rule discharged; Ad interim relief vacated.

Premjibhai Kanjibhai Prajapati Vs Haribhai Jivrajbhai… — Specific Performance | Gujarat HC (2018)

¶1

C/SCA/16502/2012 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16502 of 2012

¶4

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

¶5

PREMJIBHAI KANJIBHAI PRAJAPATI

¶6

Versus

¶7

HARIBHAI JIVRAJBHAI GOHIL

¶8

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

¶9

Appearance:

¶10

MR PARTHIV B SHAH(2678) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5 . for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2 MR. JAY M THAKKAR(6677) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2 NOTICE UNSERVED(8) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1

¶11

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

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

¶13

Date : 12/06/2018

¶14

ORAL ORDER

¶15

1.The present petitioners are original
plaintiffs in Special Civil Suit No.28 of 2010.
The suit is for specific performance of the
contract. According to the petitioners, the
original defendant No.2/original respondent No.2
initially did not appear in the suit so filed.
The petitioners filed an application Exhibit 5
praying for interim injunction. The Trial Court
by an order dated 09.07.2010 allowed the said
application.

¶16

2.Aggrieved by the order below Exhibit 5 dated
09.06.2010, defendant No. 2/respondent No.2
herein preferred an appeal being Civil
Miscellaneous Application No.193 of 2010. In the
appeal, the present petitioners preferred

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

C/SCA/16502/2012 ORDER

¶19

application Exhibit 8, wherein, it was the
contention of the petitioners that District Court
would not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal, as
the subject matter of the original suit was more
than Rs.5 lacs. By an order dated 23.07.2012,
the application was rejected giving rise to the
present petition.

¶20

3.Mr.Jay Thakkar, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent No.2-original defendant No.2/
original appellant before the District Court,
states that in view of the fact that he
contemplates to file an appeal against the order
dated 09.07.2010 by which Exhibit 5 application
in the suit was allowed as also keeping in mind
that appeal being Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
No.193 of 2010 could not have been filed before
the District Court, he would withdraw the same
with a view to file an Appeal before this Court.

¶21

4.Mr. Parthiv Shah, learned counsel for the
petitioners-original plaintiff submits that such
an appeal is now sought to be filed against order
dated 09.07.2010 i.e after more than 8 years from
the date of the order by which the plaintiffs’
Exhibit 5 application was allowed.

¶22

5. This Court by order dated 13.12.2012 has
admitted the present petition and granted ad
interim relief by virtue of which proceedings of
the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.193 of 2010 was

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

C/SCA/16502/2012 ORDER

¶25

stayed. In view of the fact that Mr.Jay Thakkar
has made a statement that he wishes to withdraw
the appeal before the District Court, this
petition would not survive.

¶26

6. As far as the passage of time that has
undergone from the date of the order i.e order
dated 09.07.2010, I express no opinion on merits
either way, except the fact that it will be open
for respondent No.2/original defendant to file
appropriate application seeking condonation of
delay in the Appeal. It shall be open for him to
so file such application requesting the Court for
condonation of delay in view of the pendency of
the petition in the interregnum. This Court has
not expressed any opinion on the question of
delay and the same shall be considered in
accordance with law. Petition is disposed of as
withdrawn. Rule is discharged. Ad interim relief
stands vacated.

¶27

(BIREN VAISHNAV, J)

¶28

N.V.MEWADA

¶29

Page 3 of 3

Premjibhai Kanjibhai Prajapati v. Haribhai Jivrajbhai Gohil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Premjibhai Kanjibhai Prajapati v. Haribhai Jivrajbhai Gohil

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

Maheshbhai @ Lalo Savjibhai Rathva Vs State of Gujarat

Thakore Laxmanji Ranchhodji Vs State of Gujarat

Kiritbhai Dhirubhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat

Jetpur Jimkhana Thro Secretary Vs Kanu Bhaktiram Bavaji

Rajendra Alias Rajan Vs Heirs of Deceased Jayram Gangadhar Joshi

Sarojben Lalitbhai Avalani Vs Jayeshbhai Amrutlal Brahmbhatt