Orders passed under Civil revision application 25 and 26/2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADCIVIL REVISION APPLICATION Nos 25 & 26 of 2002For Approval and Signature:Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE D.K.TRIVEDI============================================================1.

Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : YESto see the judgements?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement?
4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO @

DHANUSHYA FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITEDVersusPANKAJ SURESHCHANDRA MODI--------------------------------------------------------------Appearance:Mr.Soparkar,learned senior advocate withMR AMAR N BHATT for Petitioners

MR MB GANDHI for Respondent No. 1

RULE SERVED BY DS for Respondent No. 2-4-------------------------------------------------

-------------CORAM : MR.JUSTICE D.K.TRIVEDIDate of decision: 15/04/2002COMMON

ORAL JUDGEMENT

1. Heard Mr.Soparkar,learned senior advocate forMr.Bhatt for the petitioner - original defendant No.1 andMr.Gandhi, learned advocate, who appeared for respondent- original plaintiff. During hearing I was taken throughthe orders under challenge passed by the learned ChamberJudge, Court No.12 below Application Exh.5 in Civil SuitNo.5827/2001 on 31.12.2001 which is under challenge inRevision Application No.26/2002 and the order passedbelow Application Exh.5 on the same Suit on 28.12.2001which is under challenge in Revision ApplicationNo.25/2002. While taking me through the petitions andthe orders under challenge, with the documents attachedthereto, it is the contention of Mr.Soparkar that thelearned Chamber Judge has committed error in allowing theaforesaid Application ex parte. He has also taken methrough the Application Exh.5 wherein the plaintiff hasprayed for direction from the trial court. By the orderdated 28.12.2001, the learned Chamber Judge has appointedCommissioner to prepare the map and to do local inspection/inventory at the suit site after giving priorwritten intimation to both the parties and the plaintiffwas directed to deposit a sum of Rs.750/--. It is thecontention of Mr.Soparkar that the learned Chamber Judgehas committed error while passing such order, which,according to him, is required to be set aside. Whiletaking me through the order dated 31.12.2001, it is thecontention of Mr.Soparkar that the learned Chamber Judgewas not right in giving direction ex parte and thelearned Chamber Judge has directed to maintain status quoof the suit property as on the date of the order i.e. on31.12.2001.

2. Mr.Gandhi appearing for the respondent plaintiffhas also vehemently urged that the Revision Applicationsare not maintainable and further that this court shouldnot entertain such Revision Applications and that thepetitioner - defendant has to approach the learnedChamber Judge and further that there is no jurisdictionalerror for which this court is required to interfere withsuch orders.

3. Considered the submissions made before me and thefact that the order under challenge is an ex parte orderpassed by the learned Chamber judge wherein thedefendants were directed to furnish particulars ashighlighted in the letter dated 29.7.99 as well as inrespect of their right and title over the suit property.Petitioner has approached this court directly by fillingthese Revision Applications and this court has whileissuing rule protected the petitioner defendant bygranting interim relief as prayed for by the petitionerin respective Revision Applications and the same wereextended from time to time, which is in force till today.4. Accordingly without expressing anything on thecontentions raised before me by the counsel appearing inthe matters, it will be in the fitness of things todirect the petitioner - defendant to approach the learnedChamber Judge and the learned Chamber Judge isaccordingly directed to decide afresh the application ofthe plaintiff in accordance with law. As the interimrelief is operating till today, the order of status quogranted earlier shall continue till the learned ChamberJudge decides the application Exh.5. The petitionerdefendant shall file reply to the Application Exh.5 on orbefore 26.4.2002 with direction that the same should beserved to the plaintiff and the Rejoinder, if any isrequired, the plaintiff shall file the same within 2weeks thereafter and the learned Chamber Judge isdirected to dispose of the application Exh.5 on or before30.6.2002 in accordance with law, without beinginfluenced by the orders passed from time to time.Accordingly the orders passed by the learned ChamberJudge are set aside. Both the Revision Applications areaccordingly disposed of. Rule is made absolute in eachmatter in the above terms. No order as to costs.(D.K.Trivedi,J)arg