Gujarat High Court
Pravinsinh Dolatsinh Himmatsinh ... vs Sarojben D/O Fatesang Parmar W/O ... on 12 October, 2022
Bench: Hemant M. Prachchhak
C/SA/132/2022 ORDER DATED: 12/10/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 132 of 2022
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE) NO. 1 of 2021
In R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 132 of 2022
==========================================================
PRAVINSINH DOLATSINH HIMMATSINH JADAV
Versus
SAROJBEN D/O FATESANG PARMAR W/O CHATRASINH ISHVARBHAI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.MRUDUL M BAROT(3750) for the Appellant(s) No.
1,2,2.1,2.2,2.3,2.4,3,4,5,5.1,5.2,5.3,5.4,6
MR SN BAROT(5299) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 12/10/2022
ORAL ORDER
[1] Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the
impugned judgment and order dated 29.04.2022 passed
by the learned Principal District Judge, Anand in
Regular Civil Appeal No.51 of 2018, the appellant/s have
preferred the present second appeal.
[2] The brief facts leading to the present case are
that the suit was originally owned by grandfather (i.e.
the father of the mother of the Plaintiffs namely
Baluben). The father of the defendants is also heir of
the grandfather of the plaintiffs. The present appellants
C/SA/132/2022 ORDER DATED: 12/10/2022
are the original plaintiff, who have filed a suit being
Regular Suit No.14 of 2018 in the Court of learned
Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Borsad, which came to be dismissed vide order
dated 06.02.2018. Being aggrieved by the same, the
appellants approached the learned District Court, which
came to be rejected by the District Court. Therefore, the
present appeal.
[3] Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties.
[4] Learned counsel appearing for the appellants
has submitted that the present suit is instituted by the
grandfather of the plaintiffs. He has further submitted
that the First Appellate Court has not properly
determined the substantial questions of law and,
therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed.
[5] Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/s
has submitted that the Courts below have not committed
any error of law and facts and the appeal being
meritless deserves to be dismissed.
C/SA/132/2022 ORDER DATED: 12/10/2022
[6] Having heard learned advocates for the parties
and having gone through the materials available on
record as well as perused the impugned order passed by
the Courts below, it appears that the plaintiff has stated
in his application that his grandfather had died 35 years
ago and also mother died in 2001. Thus, when the
father expired, at that time, his mother was live and the
mother of the plaintiff was unaware about the death of
his father cannot be believed. The mother of the plaintiff
has not demanded her share during her life time
whereas the suit is filed by the plaintiff in the year
2018 i.e. after 16 to 17 years of his mother's death.
Considering the facts of the case and case cause of
action, the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated
the factum of delay in preferring the suit. This Court
has also considered the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Chhotanben and Anr. Vs. Kiritbhai
Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar & Ors reported in 2018(3) G.LH
338.
[7] Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that
C/SA/132/2022 ORDER DATED: 12/10/2022
the order passed by the trial Court is just and proper
and after appreciating legal position of law and therefore
this Court finds no illegality or irregularity in the
impugned order passed by the trial Court. Hence, the
present appeal is devoid of merits and the same is
hereby rejected. No order as to costs. Interim relief, if
any, stands vacated forthwith.
[8] In view of the order passed in the main
matter, the present Civil Application does not survive
and stands disposed of accordingly.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
Manoj
