Gujarat High Court
Chandrikaben Dhirajlal Parikh vs The Ahmedabad Mahila Nagrik Sahakari ... on 9 September, 2024
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/1988/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR REVIEW) NO. 1988 of 2024
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 596 of 2024
==================================================
CHANDRIKABEN DHIRAJLAL PARIKH
Versus
THE AHMEDABAD MAHILA NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD & ORS.
==================================================
Appearance:
KRISHAL H PATEL(9644) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SAURIN A MEHTA(470) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR NV GANDHI(1693) for the Opponent(s) No. 1
==================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA
AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 09/09/2024
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
The review application has been filed seeking for review of the
judgment and order dated 01.07.2024 on the premise that three
points argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner have not been
looked into and considered or decided in the judgment impugned.
2. With respect to the first point of the original petitioner not
being member of the co-operative society and hence the Board of
Nominee having no jurisdiction to decide the dispute, on the asking
of the Court, it was admitted that the said point was not pressed nor
has been adjudicated by the learned Single Judge. It is sought to be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/1988/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2024
undefined
submitted that since the judgment was rendered by the learned
Single Judge on other aspect of the matter, there was no occasion for
the learned Single Judge to deal with the issue. The second point
pressed was to the effect that memorandum of equitable mortgage
was created by the petitioner in favour of the Bank, which the Bank
released with the surrendering of the documents, the original deeds,
submitted by the petitioner at the time of creation of the mortgage.
The submission is, thus, is that equitable mortgage created by the
petitioner in favour of the Bank would come to an end. This issue has
not been properly dealt with by us in the judgment and order dated
01.07.2024. The third submission is that the mortgage stood
redeemed with the return of original documents of the title by the
Bank by virtue of proviso to Section 60 of the Transfer of Property
Act. Both the second and third arguments have been dealt by us in
the judgment and order dated 01.07.2024. Insofar as the assertion
that the original petitioner was not a member of the co-operative
society and the Board of Nominee had no jurisdiction to entertain the
dispute or pass any order has not been pressed before the learned
Single Judge and there was no question for us to deal with said
arguments, for the simple reason that we have not agreed with the
learned Single Judge on the issue of discharge of equitable mortgage.
For the reasoning given in the judgment and order dated 01.07.2024,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/1988/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/09/2024
undefined
we do not find any reason to entertain the said arguments. Be that as
it may, it is settled law that re-hearing in the nature of review is not
permissible. We, therefore, reject the review application being
misconceived.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J)
phalguni
