The High Court of Gujarat dismissed a special civil application seeking quashing of orders rejecting an interim injunction regarding rain water flow. The court found no error in the lower courts' decisions due to the petitioner's failure to produce relevant documentary evidence.
N/A
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C/SCA/4978/2020 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4978 of 2020
==========================================================
VASAVA MATHURBHAI TALSHIBHAI
Versus
VASAVA NAGJIBHAI BHAYABHAI
========================================================== Appearance:
MR HARSHAD K PATEL(2844) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 01/04/2021
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:
“8(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to admit and allow this petition;
8(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and set aside the impugned order dtd. 15.6.2019 passed by Ld. 15th (Ad-hoc) Additional District Judge, Vadodara in Misc. Civil Appeal No.43 of 2018 as well as order dated 24.4.2018 passed by Ld. Additional Civil Judge, Karjan on application below Exh.5 in Regular Civil Suit No.22 of 2017 and further be pleased to grant the interim injunction application Exh.5 in Regular Civil Suit No.22 of 2017, in the interest of justice;
8(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to stay the implementation, operation and execution of the impugned order dtd. 15.6.2019 passed by Ld. 15th (Ad-hoc) Additional District Judge, Vadodara in Misc. Civil Appeal No.43 of 2018 as well as order dated 24.4.2018 passed by Ld. Additional Civil Judge, Karjan on application below Exh.5 in Regular Civil Suit No.22 of 2017 and further be pleased to restrain the respondents, their agents, servants, etc. from encroaching upon the subject way and preventing the rainy water flowing from the subject way, which is situated between the Plot No.4 and Plot No.5, pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition;
8(D) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to pass such other and further order as the nature and circumstances of the case may be required.”
Page 1 of 6
C/SCA/4978/2020 ORDER
2.1. The petitioner is owner of the plot no.5 situated at village Dhamanja, Taluka Karjan, District Vadodara. The land that the petitioner owns was alloted to the father of the petitioner on rent by the state authorities. The petitioner constructed residential premises on the same and started residing there.
2.2. The petitioner is the owner of plot no.5 whereas owner to plot no.4 to 6, respondent no.1 herein started putting up construction on the said land and even tried to encroach upon the open land. Due to that the dispute took place between the petitioner and respondents which resulted the petitioner filing Regular Civil Suit No.61 of 2003 before the Court of Civil Judge, Vadodara.
2.3. Ultimately, in the said suit, compromise has been arrived at and it was understood between the parties that the construction will be put up in such a way that it may not refrain the rainy water. As stated in para 3.4, the suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner.
Page 2 of 6
C/SCA/4978/2020 ORDER
Page 3 of 6
C/SCA/4978/2020 ORDER
Misc. Civil Application No.43 of 2018 by 15th (Ad-hoc) Additional District Judge, Vadodara and order dated 24/04/2018 passed below Exh.5 by learned Additional Civil Judge, Karjan in Regular Civil Suit No.22 of 2017 by way of this petition.
Page 4 of 6
C/SCA/4978/2020 ORDER
the petitioner has produced a number of resolutions passed by the gram panchayat, the petitioner was not in a position to ascertain as to which resolution is applicable in case of the petitioner. The petitioner also did not apply for panch rojkam and, therefore, in absence of any documents depicting the actual picture on the cite, the learned trial court rejected the application of the petitioner. While rejecting the application, learned trial court also observed that the petitioner failed to produce any documentary evidence as indicated by the petitioner as the petitioner did not produce any important or any other relevant document on record. Even the appellate court, while rejecting Misc. Civil Application No.43 of 2018, categorically stated that in the list of documents produced at Exh.3, on examining those documents, there is no evidence showing open way for passing out rainy water. The Appellate Court also given a specific findings that as per the averments made by the plaintiff, there is enough space between two plots for disposal of rainy water and the petitioner also failed to show that present respondents were making the construction on their plot no.4 by encroaching upon the Government Land.
Page 5 of 6
C/SCA/4978/2020 ORDER
Vadodara and order dated 24/04/2018 passed below Exh.5 by learned Additional Civil Judge, Karjan in Regular Civil Suit No.22 of 2017.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)
ila
Page 6 of 6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the impugned orders rejecting the interim injunction application for rain water flow.
Whether the errors alleged by the petitioner in not considering the petitioner's say warrant interference.
Vasava Mathurbhai Talshibhai
Vasava Nagjibhai Bhayabhai
Nirzar S. Desai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
