Gangasingh Vijaysinghji Parmar vs State Of Gujarat
2022 Latest Caselaw 355 Guj

     C/SCA/20231/2021                             JUDGMENT DATED: 11/01/2022




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

        R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20231 of 2021

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI
=======================================

       Whether Reporters of Local            Papers   may be
 1                                                                       NO
       allowed to see the judgment ?

 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                               NO

       Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
 3                                                                       NO
       of the judgment ?
   Whether this case involves a substantial question
 4 of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution                   NO
   of India or any order made thereunder ?

=======================================
              GANGASINGH VIJAYSINGHJI PARMAR
                             Versus
                      STATE OF GUJARAT
=======================================
Appearance:
MR J G VAGHELA(3971) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,5,6,7,7.1,7.2,7.3,7.4,7.5,7.6
MS MEGHA CHITALIYA, AGP(99) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=======================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI

                         Date : 11/01/2022

                         ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Rule.

2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the direct the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar to expeditiously decide

C/SCA/20231/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/01/2022

the Civil Suit No. 243 of 2010 as far as possible, within a period of six months.

3. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the prayer made in the present petition, which is found to be innocuous one, the Court heard the matter finally at the admission stage without issuing formal notice to the rest respondents.

4. Heard, learned advocate Mr. J. G. Vaghela for the petitioner and learned AGP Ms. Megha Chitaliya for the respondent - State.

5. The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the original defendant No. 5 in the civil suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 243 of 2010 filed by the respondent No. 3 herein - original plaintiff for cancellation of sale-deed, declaration and permanent injunction in the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar. It is submitted that the suit is pending for about 11 years, however, Issues are yet to be framed and the suit is pending at the stage of hearing the interim injunction application Exh. 5 only. It is submitted that the respondent No. 4 herein had sold the suit property to the mother of the petitioner way back in the year 1992 and hence, amendment in Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act in the year 2005 would not be applicable to the transactions made prior to December 2004, to be precise, to the aforesaid sale transaction and this issue, being very trivial one, requires to be decided at the earliest. The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a senior citizen, aged about 73 years and accordingly, in the aforesaid set of circumstances, suit may be expedited and accordingly, it is urged to allow this petition.

C/SCA/20231/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/01/2022

6. As against this, learned AGP, while not much controverting this petition, has submitted that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, appropriate orders may be passed.

7. Regard being had to the submissions made and taking into consideration the material available on record vis-a-vis the fact that the suit is filed in the year 2010 and is pending at the stage of deciding interim injunction application Exh. 5 and even Issues are not framed after lapse of these many years as also, considering the age of the petitioner i.e. 73 years, in the considered opinion of this Court, interest of justice would be served if the suit is expedited and directed to be decided in a time frame.

8. In the aforesaid backdrop, the petition succeeds and is accordingly, allowed in part. The learned trial Court concerned is directed to decide the Regular Civil Suit No. 243 of 2010 as early as possible but not later than twelve months from the date of receipt of writ of this order, on its own merits, in accordance with law. The parties to the suit are directed to cooperate in the hearing of the suit and shall not ask for unnecessary adjournments. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.

[ A. C. Joshi, J. ] hiren