AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsels for the parties.
During the course of submissions, Shri Nanavati, learned counsel appearing for the appellant sought permission of this Court to make amendment for amending the prayer clause and inserting an alternative prayer, which was granted. Accordingly, the prayer clause 4(AA) came to be inserted and now Shri Nanavati, learned counsel, under the instructions, submits that he confines this Appeal to the prayer clause 4(AA) only and does not press any other prayers mentioned in the memo of Appeal. Prayer clause 4(AA) thus, read as under:
"the alternative, this Hon''ble Court may be pleased to clarify and direct learned City Civil Court, A''bad to decide pending Civil Suit No. 3413/92 along with the counter claim on its merits."
Thus, the Appeal is now confine to the said prayer. This appeal is filed inter-alia challenging the order dated 31.7.2009 passed by this Court in Company Application No. 492 of 2008.
The facts leading to filing of this Appeal, as could be gathered from the memo of Appeal, deserve to be set out as under:
The appellant has filed present Appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 31.7.2009 passed by this Court in Company Application No. 492 of 2008 in Company Petition No. 121 of 1995, dismissing the application of the appellant and rejecting the prayer for direction to the Official Liquidator to execute the conveyance of land bearing Survey Nos. 998, 1000 (part), 1001 (part), 1002 (part), 1005, 1012, 1013 (part) and 1014 (part), admeasuring 42760 sq. mtrs in aggregate of revenue village: Vatva, Taluka : Daskroi, District: Ahmedabad together with factory building constructed thereon admeasuring about 5251 sq.mtrs in favour of the appellant, upon depositing the balance amount of consideration amounting to Rs.20 lacs, free from encumbrances of any nature whatsoever, in specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 9.1.1979 and the supplementary agreement dated 29.4.1980.
As it is stated hereinabove, during the course of submissions, the Court''s attention was invited to the observation of learned Single Judge in para-17 and it was submitted that the said observations may weigh with the trial Court and hence, appropriate clarification be made and accordingly, the counsel sought permission of this Court to amend the prayer clause and thereafter confine entire Appeal qua said amended prayer clause only.
Learned counsel appearing for OL could not controvert the prayer for direction or clarification as in his submission, there was already a direction issued by this Court in this very proceedings under order dated 25.6.2015 in O.J. Appeal No. 28 of 2010, which is reproduced as under:
"In view of the fact that Civil Suit No. 3413 of 1992 is pending before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad since
1992, matter is adjourned to 08.12.2015. In the meantime, Mr. Yadav, learned advocate for the Official Liquidator to approach City Civil Court by way of an application for expeditious hearing. If such application is moved, the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad shall hear and dispose of the suit on or before 30.11.2015. Copy of this order be given to Mr. Yadav, learned advocate."
Pursuant thereto, he did apply to Court concerned for expeditious hearing of the suit. However, on account of advent of Commercial Court, matter got transferred and re-transferred and ultimately, the suit could not be proceeded with.
In view of this, when the counsel has confined this Appeal only qua clarification that the learned Single Judge''s order would not have any effect upon the merits of the suit and sought direction for expeditious hearing of the suit within stipulated time. Otherwise also, the Court need to be mindful of the fact that the suit is that of the year 1992 and on account of pendency thereof, many claims are awaited to be decided. In that view of the matter, direction for expeditious hearing and disposing of the same within stipulated time deserves to be granted.
We are incline to dispose of this Appeal by issuing the following direction:
The trial Court where the suit being Civil Suit No. 3413 of 1992 and counter claim, if any, is pending, is hereby directed to decide the same within one year from the date of receipt of writ of this Court on its own merit without being influenced by the observations made by learned Single Judge in the order.
In view of aforesaid, the Appeal is disposed. There shall be no
order as to costs.