ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Rule.

2. The substantive prayer which is made in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, filed at the instance of the petitioner – original plaintiff, is as follows:

“7(B)Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order at Annexure A, dated: 21/07/2020 passed by the Ld. Principal District Judge, Amreli in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 17/2018 confirming the judgment and order dated 17/12/2018 passed by the Ld. Principal Civil Judge, Lathi in application below Ex. 5 filed in Regular Civil Suit No. 36 of 2018 and further Your Lordships be pleased to allow the application below Ex. 5 as prayed for by the plaintiffs.”

3. Heard, learned advocate Mr. M. B. Parikh for the petitioners – original plaintiff and learned advocate Ms. Nidhika Zaveri for the respondent.

3.1 The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that both the learned Courts below have committed error in rejecting the injunction application Exh. 5 preferred by the petitioners – plaintiff. He submitted that the learned Courts below have committed an error in appreciating the factual position on record that an agreement to sell was executed between the plaintiffs and the defendant for the suit property on 20.03.1985 and part sale consideration of Rs.1,000/- was also paid, however due to death of the President of the Mandali, Sale Deed could not be executed. He submitted that all these facts as well as the documents though were very much available on record, the learned Courts below did not believe the same and eventually, passed the impugned orders which are against the facts and the settled legal position. It is further submitted that it is observed by the learned first Appellate Court that by a letter dated 20.10.1997 of Liquidation OfÏcer, Co-operative Societies, Amreli to the Gujarat State Khadi Gram Udyog Board, Ahmedabad it was instruction to fix the date of auction of the said property and thereafter, the City Surveyor, Lathi was instructed by the Deputy Director (Recovery), Khadi Gram Udyog Board, Ahmedabad for auction of the said property, however, the learned first Appellate Court has miserably failed to take into consideration the fact that plaintiffs – petitioners herein are the tenant and in lawful possession of the suit property for years.

3.2 The learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are in the possession of the suit property since long and accordingly, though all three ingredients for the interim injunction viz. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss were satisfied, the learned Courts below has grossly erred in rejecting the said application and accordingly, it is urged that the impugned orders may be set aside and the interim injunction may be granted in favour of the plaintiffs –

petitioners.

4. Per contra, learned advocate Ms. Nidhika Zaveri for the respondent, while opposing the present petition and supporting the impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below, submitted that there are concurrent findings of the two learned Courts below and accordingly, no interference is required at the hands of this Court. She submitted that the suit property is in possession of the defendant and by spending a huge amount, has developed the same. She further submitted that even the House Tax, Water Bill, Electricity Bill etc. and all such bills are being issued in the name of the defendant only and the defendant regularly pays such Bill. It is further submitted that some proceedings had been initiated by the City Inquiry OfÏcer, Lathi, who had shown the suit property being Revenue Survey No. 508 belonged to the Government. Against the said proceedings, the defendant had approached the ofÏce of the Deputy Collector, Amreli by way of an Appeal being No. 3/85-86. In the said proceedings were party allowed by virtue of an order dated

01.04.1986 by the Deputy Collector, Amr