ORAL ORDER

1. This petition is filed by the petitioner – original plaintiff, challenging the order passed by the 09th Additional District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), dated 31.07.2017 rendered in Misc. Civil Appeal No.31 of 2017, whereby order passed below Exhibit -5 in favour of the petitioner – plaintiff directing to maintain status quo, came to be set aside.

2. The petitioner – plaintiff filed a suit being Special Civil Suit No.396 of 2009 for declaration to the effect that defendant Nos.1/1 to 1/7/4 have right and interest in the suit property, from whom, petitioner – plaintiff claims to have an agreement to sell dated 09.10.2006 for the suit property, which was already conveyed by registered sale deed prior to even agreement to sell for the suit property executed by the petitioner – plaintiff.

3. Surprisingly, the original affected parties have not filed the suit for claiming their share in the suit property and suit itself is filed by the present petitioner – plaintiff, based on agreement to sell in respect of the suit property, which is already sold by way of registered sale deed prior thereto. The Trial Court directed to maintain status quo with regard to the suit property, which came to be set aside by the Appellate Court at the instance of the original defendant Nos.8 to 11, in whose favour there is a sale deed executed by the other defendants.

4. The appellate order came to be passed quashing and setting aside the order of status quo below Exhibit -5 granted by the Trial Court on 31.07.2017. Thereafter, the present petition has been filed and except the adjournments, as recorded in the docket- sheet requesting for time on behalf of the petitioner along with several adjourned dates, even no order issuing notice is passed by the Court in the petition filed in the year 2017.

5. Heard Mr. Abhishek Sharma, learned advocate for Mr. Vimal Purohit, learned advocate for the petitioner. He has submitted that the suit is now at the stage of recording evidence of the plaintiff.

6. Since there is no order in respect of suit property with regard to status quo from 31.07.2017 and as such on merit also, petitioner – plaintiff who is claiming his right in the suit property based on agreement to sell executed by him from the original owners which was already conveyed to the defendants much prior to execution of an agreement to sell in favour of the present petitioner – plaintiff, is not entitled to any stay and therefore, stay which is not there since 31.07.2017 and in view of the aforesaid facts, on merit also, it is not required to be granted and therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the appellate order, whereby order of status quo granted by the Trial Court, came to be set aside. In view thereof, the present petition stands rejected.

(UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J)

Lalji Desai