Gujarat High Court
Manishbhai Arvindbhai Bhakt vs Amrutbhai Dahyabhai Patel on 24 January, 2024
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1887/2019 ORDER DATED: 24/01/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1887 of 2019
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7254 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1887 of 2019
==========================================================
MANISHBHAI ARVINDBHAI BHAKT
Versus
AMRUTBHAI DAHYABHAI PATEL
==========================================================
Appearance:
DR BALRAM D JAIN(3146) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
MS HETAL PATEL AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 6
MR AS VAKIL(962) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4.1,4.2
MR MG NAGARKAR(496) for the Respondent(s) No. 5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 24/01/2024
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. No one has put an appearance to press the Appeal. Mr. A. S.
Vakil, the learned advocate has put an appearance on behalf of the
respondents/original petitioners.
2. The challenge in the instant Appeal is to the judgment and
order dated 21.11.2019, whereby the application for impleadment
of the appellant as respondent No.3 in the Writ Petition was rejected
with the observation that the appellant is neither necessary, nor
proper party so as to adjudicate the dispute raised in the Writ
Petition. The applicant/appellant herein was seeking impleadment in
the Writ Petition on the premise of an agreement to sale with
possession executed on 03.12.1979 in favour of his father. It was
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1887/2019 ORDER DATED: 24/01/2024
undefined
stated that a civil suit before the Senior Civil Judge, Surat for specific
performance of the said agreement had also been filed by the
applicant. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the
respondents/original petitioners that an application under Order 7
Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 has been filed by the
original petitioners in the civil suit, which is pending disposal. The
issue raised in the Writ Petition was to direct the respondent G.I.D.C.
to return the land of the petitioners as contemplated in the
resolutions dated 19.03.2016 and 05.07.2016 of the respondent
G.I.D.C. The Writ Petition has been allowed vide judgment and order
dated 18.05.2020 with the direction to the respondent G.I.D.C. to
return the land in question to the petitioners as contemplated in the
aforesaid resolutions.
3. Noticing the above, we find that in view of the final disposal of
the Writ Petition filed by the respondents/original petitioners herein
vide judgment and order dated 18.05.2020, no cause of action
survives in the instant Appeal. The instant Appeal is dismissed as
such. The Civil Application for stay does not survive and the same is
disposed of, accordingly. However, the liberty is with the appellant
to agitate his right in the pending civil suit.
4. It is clarified that the dismissal of the instant Appeal or the
impleadment application filed by the appellant would not come in
the way of the appellant in the pending civil proceedings.
5. After the order was dictated in the open Court, Dr. Balram
Jain, the learned advocate appearing for the appellant came up to
make a mention at about 3.30PM that he was about to make a
request for dismissal of the instant Appeal as infructuous on account
of the fact that he has filed a fresh Letters Patent Appeal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1887/2019 ORDER DATED: 24/01/2024
undefined
challenging the judgment and order dated 18.05.2020. On a query
made by the Court as to the number of the Letters Patent Appeal
filed by him, he would submit that he has filed the appeal about one
month ago, which is lying in the Registry with the office objections
and only Kachha number has been given to the said appeal. Be that
as it may, the submission made by the learned counsel for the
appellant does not take him any further.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.)
cmk
