SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(Guj) 11

ABHILASHA KUMARI
GANGABEN AMBALAL PATEL – Appellant
Versus
SOMABHAI PARSHOTTAMBHAI PATEL – Respondent


Advocates: APURVA R.KAPADIA, CHINMAY M.GANDHI, M.B.GANDHI,

ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.

( 1 ) RULE. Mr. Chinmay M. Gandhi, learned Counsel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent. This petition has been preferred invoking the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia with a prayer to quash and set aside order dated 02. 12. 2008. passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, khambhat below application at exhibit-122 in Civil Suit No. 161 of 1994, whereby the said application for amendment of the plaint, has been rejected.

( 2 ) THE brief factual background of the case, necessary for the decision of the petition is that, the petitioners are the owners of the house numbered as 43-44, situated at Nagar Faliya Gam. which is running in their names, as per the revenue record and before them, in the names of their forefathers, since years together. According to the petitioners, they also have a 'vaada' (Enclosure) on the north-eastern side and a wall has been constructed on the four corners of the said enclosure.

2. 1 The case of the petitioners is that there is a common way for entering into the said enclosure, which is of the ownership of the concerned Gram panchayat and that the petitioners are usi















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top