CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2011) 04 GUJ CK 0068

Sharmisthaben Rameshchandra Shah and Another vs Mitenbhai Rameshchandra Shah

Gujarat High Court · Decided on 29 April 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
K. S. Jhaveri, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Special Civil Application No. 6474 of 2010

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 332 words

K.S. Jhaveri, J.—By way of present petition, the Petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 27.01.2010 passed by the Chamber Judge, City Civil Court at Ahmedabad below Exh. 6 and Exh. 7 in Civil Suit No. 2180 of 2009 whereby the application preferred by the Respondent is granted restraining the Petitioner from dispossessing the suit property except in accordance with law.

2.

The Petitioners are the parents of present Respondent who has filed Civil Suit No. 2180 of 2009 against the Petitioners for the acquired property of the Petitioners situated at Ahmedabad along with interim injunction restraining the Petitioners from removing the present Respondents. The Petitioner filed their written statement to the suit as well as to interim injunction application Exh. 6 and Exh. 7. After hearing both the parties, the learned Chamber Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad granted application Exh. 6 and Exh. 7 restraining the Petitioner from dispossessing of the suit premises except in accordance with law. Hence, this petition.

3.

As a result of hearing and perusal of the documents on record, it is found that the trial Court has only restrained the Petitioner from dispossessing the suit premises. From the record, it is evident that the Petitioner is in the possession of the suit property and the same is not disputed. The trial Court has granted injunction to the Respondent restraining the Petitioners from dispossessing the suit property without due process of law. The view taken by the trial Court is just and proper.

4.

It appears that looking to the prayer made by the Petitioners only an Appeal From Order will lie against the impugned order. An endevour is made to consider the petition into an Appeal From Order. Since the matter is admitted without entering into the technicality, this writ petition is heard and no case is made out to cause interference. The petition is therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.