Prabodhkumar Maganbhai Patel vs Modasa Kadva Patidar Chhatralaya

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2009 Supreme(Guj) 728

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
M.R. Shah, J.
Prabodhkumar Maganbhai Patel - Petitioner
Versus
Modasa Kadva Patidar Chhatralaya & Ors. - Respondents
Special Civil Application No. 5103 of 2009 To Special Civil Application No. 5113 of 2009 With Special Civil Application No. 4545 of 2009
Decided On : 03-08-2009

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:R.C. Jani, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mihir Johsi, Sr. Advocate With Sunil S. Joshi, Advocate

Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 - Advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent - Group of petitions and dispute is with respect - Petitions are disposed of by this common judgment and order - Trust at District who is running a in premises in question - Appears that respective petitioners are in occupation and possession of shops in premises in question - Case on behalf of respective petitioners-original plaintiffs that shops in question are given on lease to them by respondent original defendant who posed themselves to be Trustees of Trust - It is case on behalf of respondent without any Authority and without there being any Resolution of Trust constructed shops unauthorized in violation of statutory rules and without any permission from Competent Authority and further given on lease to respective petitioners in year That the defendant who are neither Trustees nor any office bearers of the Trust made an application to the Collector for regularizing the construction of shops - Special Civil Application was preferred before this Court and same came to be withdrawn by petitioners and consequently order passed by Collector confirmed by Revision authority not regularizing construction of the shops occupied by petitioners and to demolish construction of shops in question came to be confirmed they become final - Held, Courts below have refused to grant interim injunction as prayed for it cannot be said that orders passed by both Courts below is illegal without jurisdiction Courts have not exercised jurisdiction vested upon it which calls for interference of this Court in exercise of powers - Courts below have rightly refused to grant interim injunction as prayed for reasons stated - Petitions fail and they deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed - Rule discharged in each of petitions - Petition dismissed

JUDGMENT :

M.R. Shah, J.

Draft amendment allowed in Special Civil Application No. 4545 of 2009

2. Rule. Shri Sunil Joshi, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 to 11 who are the main contesting respondents.

3. As common question of law and facts arise in these group of petitions and the dispute is with respect to one Trust i.e. Modasa Kadva Patidar Trust, all these petitions are disposed of by this common judgment and order.

4.1. Special Civil Application No. 4545 of 2009 has been preferred, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the petitioner herein original plaintiff for an appropriate writ, direction and order to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 31.3.2009 passed by the learned 3rd Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.), Modasa passed below Exh. 5 in Regular Civil Suit No. 65 of 2008 in not granting the interim injunction as prayed for, as well as the order passed by the learned 3rd Joint District Judge, at Modasa, District: Sabarkantha dated 28.4.2009 passed in C.A.F.O. No. 22 of 2009 in dismissing the same and confirming the order passed by the learned trial Court passed below Exh. 5 in aforesaid Regular Civil No. 65 of 2008.

4.2 Special Civil Application No. 5103 of 2009 has been preferred, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the petitioner herein original plaintiff for an appropriate writ, direction and order to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 31.3.2009 passed by the learned 3rd Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.), Modasa passed below Exh. 5 in Regular Civil Suit No. 66 of 2008 in not granting the interim injunction as prayed for, as well as the order passed by the learned 3rd Joint District Judge, at Modasa, District: Sabarkantha dated 28.4.2009 passed in C.A.F.O. No. 25 of 2009 in dismissing the same and confirming the order passed by the learned trial Court passed below Exh. 5 in aforesaid Regular Civil Suit No. 66 of 2008.

4.3 Special Civil Application No. 5104 of 2009 has been preferred, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the petitioner herein original plaintiff for an appropriate writ, direction and order to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 31.3.2009 passed by the learned 3rd Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.), Modasa passed below Exh. 5 in Regular Civil Suit No. 67 of 2008 in not granting the interim injunction as prayed for, as well as the order passed by the learned 3rd Joint District Judge, at Modasa, District: Sabarkantha dated 28.4.2009 passed in C.A.F.O. No. 26 of 2009 in dismissing the same and confirming the order passed by the learned trial Court passed below Exh. 5 in aforesaid Regular Civil Suit No. 67 of 2008.

4.4 Special Civil Application No. 5105 of 2009 has been preferred, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the petitioner herein original plaintiff for an appropriate writ, direction and order to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 31.3.2009 passed by the learned 3rd Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.), Modasa passed below Exh.5 in Regular Civil Suit No. 68 of 2008 in not granting the interim injunction as prayed for, as well as the order passed by the learned 3rd Joint District Judge, at Modasa, District: Sabarkantha dated 28.4.2009 passed in C.A.F.O. No. 27 of 2009 in dismissing the same and confirming the order passed by the learned trial Court passed below Exh.5 in aforesaid Regular Civil Suit No. 68 of 2008.

4.5 Special Civil Application No. 5106 of 2009 has been preferred, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the petitioner herein original plaintiff for an appropriate writ, direction and order to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 31.3.2009 passed by the learned 3rd Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.), Modasa passed below Exh. 5 in Regular Civil Suit No. 70 of 2008 in not granting the interim injunction as prayed for, as well as the order passed by the learned 3rd Joint District Judge, at Modasa, District: Sabarkantha dated 28.4.2009 passed in C.A.F.O. No. 28 of 2009 in