Dismissed

Vinodbhai Madevabhai Patel v. Sumitkumar Sureshkumar Patel

Gujarat HC10 May 2019AO/121/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against an order refusing stay was disposed of as broad consensus emerged between parties. Court quashed impugned order and directed main application regarding land possession and title to be decided within four weeks with status quo maintained.

What did the court decide?

Quashed impugned order dated 08.04.2019. Directed main application to be heard and decided within four weeks. Maintained status quo.

Vinodbhai Madevabhai Patel Vs Sumitkumar Sureshkumar Patel — Property and Title | Gujarat HC (2019)

¶1

C/AO/121/2019 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 121 of 2019

¶4

With

¶5

CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019 In R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 121 of 2019

¶6

=============================================== VINODBHAI MADEVABHAI PATEL

¶7

Versus

¶8

SUMITKUMAR SURESHKUMAR PATEL

¶9

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

¶10

Appearance :

¶11

MR SP MAJMUDAR(3456) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR. ANAND V THAKKAR(7091) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR.NIRUPAM NANAVATI, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR VIJAY H NANGESH(3981) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3

¶12

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

¶13

CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J. SHASTRI

¶14

Date : 10/05/2019

¶15

ORAL ORDER

¶16

[1] The present Appeal form Order is filed for the purpose of challenging the legality and validity of an order passed by the court below upon Exh.10 mainly on the premise that without extending any opportunity and without assigning any reason, the impugned order is passed. However, in the meantime, during the hearing of present Appeal from Order, a broad consensus has arrived at between learned advocates upon their respective clients' instructions that instead of allowing this order to be operated, main Exh.5 application be heard and disposed of at the earliest within stipulated period and in the meantime, parties are ready and willing to maintain status quo with regard to possession, title and nature of the suit land in question and as such, a request is made to the Court to dispose of the present Appeal from Order.

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

C/AO/121/2019 ORDER

¶19

[2] Having heard learned advocate Mr.S.P.Majmudar for the appellant and learned senior advocate Mr.Nirupam Nanavati with learned advocate Mr.Vijay H.Nangesh for the contesting respondent and having gone through the order impugned, the submissions made by learned advocates appearing for the respective parties deserve consideration in the interest of justice. Hence, the Appeal from Order stands disposed of on the following line:

¶20

(i) The impugned order dated 08.04.2019 passed below Exh.10 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Deesa is quashed and set aside. Consequently, the learned Judge is requested to hear and dispose of main Exh.5 application submitted by the original plaintiff for seeking injunction within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this Court and in the meantime, both the parties are directed to maintain status quo with regard to possession, title and nature of the land in question till Exh.5 application gets decided.

¶21

(ii) It is made clear that the Court has accepted this broad submissions of learned advocates and as such, has not examined the merit or de-merit of the case of the rival sides. It is open for the learned Judge to hear and dispose of main Exh.5 application in accordance with law on the basis of material available, after hearing both the sides and without being influenced by impugned order, which is set aside.

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

C/AO/121/2019 ORDER

¶24

(iii) Since the pleadings are completed so as to enable the learned Judge to decide Exh.5 application, learned Judge is directed to hear and dispose of Exh.5 application within a period of four weeks as mentioned above and shall pass a reasoned order after extending opportunity of both the sides.

¶25

(iv) Parties are directed to cooperate with the hearing before learned Judge.

¶26

[3] With these observations, without examined merit or demerit of the case, the Appeal from Order stands disposed of as not pressed.

¶27

[4] In view of the order passed in Appeal from Order, Civil Application does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly.

¶28

Direct service today is permitted.

¶29

(A.J. SHASTRI, J)

¶30

DHARMENDRA KUMAR

¶31

Page 3 of 3

Vinodbhai Madevabhai Patel v. Sumitkumar Sureshkumar Patel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinodbhai Madevabhai Patel v. Sumitkumar Sureshkumar Patel

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

Lam Bda Therapeutic Research Limited through Its Authorized Signatory, Mr. Naresh Poorandas Khemani Vs Jinay Jitendra Shah

Keshubhai Limbabhai Bhalala Vs Vinodbhai Limbabhai Bhalala

Thakor Bhikhiben Daughter and Legal Heirs of Late Gandaji Juhaji Thakor Vs Thakor Maheshji Javanji

Khursheed Ahmedkhan Tegalikhan Pathan Vs State of Gujarat

Dipakgiri Bhagvangiri Goswami Vs Jayantilal Mulji Bhimani

R.K. M. Healthcare (India) Vs Royal Labs Owned by Sangeeta P Pandya through Chief Executive Pankajbhai Balkrishna Pandya