Gujarat High Court
Dipak Vasudev Keni vs Champaben Arvindbhai ... on 8 January, 2021
Bench: N.V.Anjaria, A.S. Supehia
C/FA/3343/2019 IA ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3343 of 2019
==========================================================
DIPAK VASUDEV KENI
Versus
PUSHPABEN HARESHBHAI MAROLIKAR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SATYAM Y CHHAYA for the PETITIONER(s) No.
MR FEROZ H PATHAN for the RESPONDENT(s) No.
MR NILESH M SHAH for the RESPONDENT(s) No.
MS TEJAL A VASHI for the RESPONDENT(s) No.
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 08/01/2021
IA ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA)
The parent First Appeal is against judgment
and order dated 30th March, 2019 passed by learned
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Umbergaon whereby
Special Civil Suit No.96 of 2018 of the plaintiff-
appellant came to be partially allowed, directing the
defendant-Chambapen Arvindbhai Mahyavanshi to return
with interest the sale consideration of
Rs.02,50,000/- paid by the plaintiff to her. The
decree for specific performance was refused. The
First Appeal came to be admitted by the Court on 09th
August, 2019.
2. As far as Civil Application for stay was
concerned, Rule was made returnable by the order of
even date.
C/FA/3343/2019 IA ORDER
3. Today when the Civil Application came up for
consideration, learned advocate for the appellant
pressed for interim relief by submitting that if the
subject matter property is not allowed to be kept in
status quo, further transactions and changing of
hands may take place which will give rise to
multiplicity of proceedings.
4. On the other hand, a Mr.Tejal Vashi relied
on observations from the impugned judgment whereby
the trial court stated that respondent No.2 could be
considered as bona fide purchaser and hence no stay
should be granted.
5. The submission on part of the appellant
about the multiplicity of proceedings in the event of
the property being dealt with further, could be
countenanced. Further, there is an additional aspect
which emerges from the facts of the record. The case
of the plaintiff is that pursuant to agreement to
sell, he paid Rs.02,50,000/- by way of earnest money.
The subject matter land came to be thereafter
transferred within the span of 34 days by defendant
No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 wherein the
consideration fixed was only Rs.75,000/-. It was
submitted that the time gap and the difference in
consideration amount are circumstances raising
suspicion. It would not be possible to conclude at
this stage that the purchaser did not know the
earlier transaction.
6. Since the First Appeal is pending and the
C/FA/3343/2019 IA ORDER
aforesaid aspects prima facie emerges, the Court is
of the view that the defendants should be restrained
from dealing with the property so that multiplicity
of litigation is avoided.
6.1 Accordingly, it is directed by way of
interim relief that the subject matter property shall
not be dealt with in any manner by any of the parties
to the proceedings so as to transfer the same or
create encumbrance thereon in any manner whatsoever.
This interim relief shall operate during the pendency
of the First Appeal.
7. Present Application stands disposed of
accordingly.
It will be open for either of the side to
request the Court for fixing the hearing of the First
Appeal after passage of four months. Within such time
of four months, Registry shall call for the Record &
Proceedings from the court concerned.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J)
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
ANUP V PARIKH
