Indrajitsinh Mansinh Raj vs Nanduben Adesinh

K.S. Jhaveri, J.—By way of this petition, the Petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 25.06.2004 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, Fast Track Court, Bharuch below application Exhibit-72 filed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1994, whereby the said application was rejected.

The facts in brief are that the Respondents had preferred Regular Civil Suit No. 149 of 1985 against the Petitioner-original Defendant, who is the legal heir of deceased Surajben Chhatrasinh, for specific performance of the suit agreement in respect of the land situated in the sim of Village Rampur bearing Survey No. 210/1 admeasuring 5 Acres and 1 Gunthas. The trial Court decreed the said suit and granted decree of Specific Performance in favour of the Respondents. Being aggrieved by the decree of specific performance, the Petitioner-original Defendant preferred appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1994 before the lower appellate Court. In the said appeal the Petitioner-original Defendant preferred application Exhibit-72 praying to stay the said appeal under the provisions of Section 85(a) of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Land Act, 1948. Pending the said appeal, the Petitioner-original Defendant approached tenancy authority by way of filing a suit u/s 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Land Act, 1948. However, the lower appellate Court vide order dated 25.06.2004 rejected the application Exhibit-72. Hence, this petition.

Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. After appreciating the evidence on record, the lower appellate Court has recorded a finding that the after more than 14 years, for the first time on 01.03.1999, the Petitioner-original Defendant had pleaded that he is the tenant of the suit land. Thus, it appears that he had instituted Tenancy Case No. 4 of 1999 in the Tenancy Court, Jambusar to avoid the execution of the decree passed by the trial Court in favour of the Respondents-original Plaintiffs. Thus the lower appellate Court had found that the dispute is not genuine and the same is taken by the Petitioner to avoid the proceedings of the Civil Court.

Looking to the facts of the case, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the lower appellate Court is just and proper. I am in complete agreement with the findings recorded and reasoning given by the lower appellate Court and hence find no reason to interfere with the same.

In the result, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief if any, stands vacated. No order as to costs.