Gujarat High Court
Govindbhai Jivabhai Parmar vs Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation on 14 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2502/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2502 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
GOVINDBHAI JIVABHAI PARMAR
Versus
AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
================================================================
Appearance:
MS VARSHA BRAHMBHATT(3145) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR ANUJ K TRIVEDI(6251) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 14/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 at the instance of the appellant - original plaintiff being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 23.04.2010 passed by the learned City Civil Court, Ahmedabad (herein after referred to as "the trial court") in Civil Suit No. 4949 of 1992, whereby, the learned Judge dismissed the suit filed by the present appellant for Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 23:38:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2502/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined recovery of damages of Rs.1,13,400/- with interest @ 18% p.a. and costs of the suit from the respondent herein - original defendant.
2. Brief facts leading to the present appeal are as under:-
2.1 It is the case of the appellant that before many years, the appellant had purchased land bearing Final Plot No.530, situated at Bhudarpura, Ahmedabad, which was known as Mali's Bagicha, from the original owner of the said land-Mali by paying sale-proceeds of Rs.5,000/- and the original owner-Mali of the aforesaid land had given oral possession of the said land to the appellant. That thereafter, the appellant had constructed a shop admeasuring 30 x 25 for the purpose of doing business.
Other persons had also constructed shops and residences on the said land. That, the appellant had incurred more than Rs.25,000/- towards the construction of said shop and was doing repairing work of scooter and automobiles- vehicles from last many years and by earning from that Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 23:38:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2502/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined business, he was maintaining his family. Except this, he had no other business. That, the appellant had taken electric connection from his adjoining shop and he was paying monthly electric consumption to the owner of his adjoining shop. That without giving alternative accommodation, the respondent - Corporation demolished the constructions of the persons who were residing or doing their businesses on the aforesaid land. 2.2 It is the case of the appellant that, the appellant had given notice, dated 01.0.1991 to the respondent - Corporation wherein, it was stated by the appellant that his shop was constructed on the private land and not on the public place i.e. on public-road where people were passing and repassing and vehicles were also passing and said suit-shop was situated in the a peaceful area. It is further the case of the appellant that on 11.03.1991, in the morning all of a sudden, officers of the respondent - Corporation, large number of staff-members with police came with bull-dozer and other vehicles, without giving Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 23:38:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2502/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined any warning to the appellant and other residents and took possession of 10 scooters, repairing instruments, other goods/luggage, one gas-cylinder and carpet's bottle, etc. and hence, the appellant had suffered loss of 10 scooters worth Rs.70,000/- and Rs.15,000/- for repairing- instruments, machinery, other goods-luggage etc. and possession of which was taken by the respondent - Corporation and rolled on bull-dozer on the shop of the appellant and demolished the shop of the appellant and therefore, the plaintiff had demanded aforesaid instruments and other scooters, goods/luggage repairing from the respondent - Corporation, however, the respondent - Corporation had refused to return the same to the appellant. It is further the case of the appellant that the respondent - Corporation had not given reasonable time to the appellant for removal of aforesaid scooters, repairing-instruments, machinery, goods/ luggage, etc. from his shop and due to such act of the respondent - Corporation the appellant was suffering loss of Rs.100/- per day from 11.30.1991 till filing of the suit, i.e. in total Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 23:38:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2502/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined Rs.3,400/-, in total, the appellant had suffered damages of Rs.1,13,400/- and hence, he had preferred the suit and prayed to pass order directing the respondent - Corporation to pay Rs.1,13,400/- for damages caused to the him and Rs.100/- per day from the date of filing of the suit till the respondent - Corporation would give alternative accommodation i.e. land for business with interest @ 18% p.a. and costs of the suit to the plaintiff. However, the suit preferred by the appellant was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 23.04.2010 passed by the learned City Civil Court, Ahmedabad.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
4. Heard learned advocate Ms. Varsha Brahmbhatt, appearing for the appellant - original plaintiff and learned advocate Mr. Anuj Trivedi, appearing for the respondent - Corporation.
Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 23:38:55 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2502/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined
5. Learned advocate Ms. Brahmbhatt has submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed byt eh trial court is arbitrary, unjust and contrary to the facts on record of the case and the trial court has committed a serious error of law while considering the facts of the present case. She has submitted that the trial court has not considered the deposition of the appellant recorded in the suit and passed the impugned judgment and order without there being any cogent and material evidence produced on record by the respondent. Over and above the grounds agitated in the memo of appeal, learned advocate Ms. Brahmbhatt has urged that the present appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment and order passed by he trial court be quashed and set aside.
6. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Trivedi, appearing for the respondent Corporation, has submitted that after considering the documentary as well as oral evidence led before the trial court and after considering the Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 23:38:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2502/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined submissions made in the plaint as well as the notice dated 01.04.1991 at Exh.-47 that there was discrepancy in the plot shown in the plaint and the so-called ownership as there was no any documentary evidence produced before the trial court which relates to the ownership of the subject plot of land. He has submitted that as per the say of the appellant, it was an oral agreement, whereby, he had purchased the plot for which no witness was examined as to from whom he had purchased the said plot. He has further submitted that the notice at Exh.-47 relates to plot no.503, whereas, as per the say of the appellant, he has purchased the plot bearing no.530 and thus, there is discrepancy in the version of the appellant, which goes to the root of the matter. Learned advocate Mr. Trivedi has submitted that after considering all these aspects, the trial court has rightly passed the impugned judgment and order dismissing the suit and there is no any infirmity or any illegality committed by the trial court and therefore, the present appeal be dismissed and the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court be Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 23:38:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2502/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined confirmed.
7. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the material placed on record. After considering the facts of the case and after going through the Record & Proceedings, I am of the opinion that there is no any infirmity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court. After considering the evidence produced on record, the trial court has answered the issue nos.1 and 2 in negative with regard to the damages caused to the appellant and also discussed relevant aspects while deciding the issue nos.3, 4 and 5. The trial court has discussed all the relevant aspects in detail while recording the reasons in para-9, 10 and 11 with regard to the ownership of the plot in question and subsequently, while dealing with the issue nos.3, 4 and 5, the trial court has discussed the evidence in detail and also examined and cross-examined the witnesses in detail. Even from the documentary as well as oral evidence, the appellant was unable to prove the facts Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 23:38:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2502/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined stated in the plaint and therefore, there is no any infirmity or any illegality committed by the trial court in passing the impugned judgment and order.
8. In the result, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. No order as to costs.
9. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Court forthwith.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) Dolly Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 23:38:55 IST 2025