Gujarat High Court
Govindbhai Jivabhai Parmar vs Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation on 14 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2502/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2502 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
GOVINDBHAI JIVABHAI PARMAR
Versus
AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
================================================================
Appearance:
MS VARSHA BRAHMBHATT(3145) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR ANUJ K TRIVEDI(6251) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 14/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of
the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 at the instance of the
appellant - original plaintiff being aggrieved and
dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated
23.04.2010 passed by the learned City Civil Court,
Ahmedabad (herein after referred to as "the trial court") in
Civil Suit No. 4949 of 1992, whereby, the learned Judge
dismissed the suit filed by the present appellant for
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2502/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
recovery of damages of Rs.1,13,400/- with interest @ 18%
p.a. and costs of the suit from the respondent herein -
original defendant.
2. Brief facts leading to the present appeal are as
under:-
2.1 It is the case of the appellant that before many years,
the appellant had purchased land bearing Final Plot
No.530, situated at Bhudarpura, Ahmedabad, which was
known as Mali's Bagicha, from the original owner of the
said land-Mali by paying sale-proceeds of Rs.5,000/- and
the original owner-Mali of the aforesaid land had given
oral possession of the said land to the appellant. That
thereafter, the appellant had constructed a shop
admeasuring 30 x 25 for the purpose of doing business.
Other persons had also constructed shops and residences
on the said land. That, the appellant had incurred more
than Rs.25,000/- towards the construction of said shop
and was doing repairing work of scooter and automobiles-
vehicles from last many years and by earning from that
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2502/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
business, he was maintaining his family. Except this, he
had no other business. That, the appellant had taken
electric connection from his adjoining shop and he was
paying monthly electric consumption to the owner of his
adjoining shop. That without giving alternative
accommodation, the respondent - Corporation demolished
the constructions of the persons who were residing or
doing their businesses on the aforesaid land.
2.2 It is the case of the appellant that, the appellant had
given notice, dated 01.0.1991 to the respondent -
Corporation wherein, it was stated by the appellant that
his shop was constructed on the private land and not on
the public place i.e. on public-road where people were
passing and repassing and vehicles were also passing and
said suit-shop was situated in the a peaceful area. It is
further the case of the appellant that on 11.03.1991, in
the morning all of a sudden, officers of the respondent -
Corporation, large number of staff-members with police
came with bull-dozer and other vehicles, without giving
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2502/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
any warning to the appellant and other residents and took
possession of 10 scooters, repairing instruments, other
goods/luggage, one gas-cylinder and carpet's bottle, etc.
and hence, the appellant had suffered loss of 10 scooters
worth Rs.70,000/- and Rs.15,000/- for repairing-
instruments, machinery, other goods-luggage etc. and
possession of which was taken by the respondent -
Corporation and rolled on bull-dozer on the shop of the
appellant and demolished the shop of the appellant and
therefore, the plaintiff had demanded aforesaid
instruments and other scooters, goods/luggage repairing
from the respondent - Corporation, however, the
respondent - Corporation had refused to return the same
to the appellant. It is further the case of the appellant that
the respondent - Corporation had not given reasonable
time to the appellant for removal of aforesaid scooters,
repairing-instruments, machinery, goods/ luggage, etc.
from his shop and due to such act of the respondent -
Corporation the appellant was suffering loss of Rs.100/-
per day from 11.30.1991 till filing of the suit, i.e. in total
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2502/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
Rs.3,400/-, in total, the appellant had suffered damages of
Rs.1,13,400/- and hence, he had preferred the suit and
prayed to pass order directing the respondent -
Corporation to pay Rs.1,13,400/- for damages caused to
the him and Rs.100/- per day from the date of filing of the
suit till the respondent - Corporation would give
alternative accommodation i.e. land for business with
interest @ 18% p.a. and costs of the suit to the plaintiff.
However, the suit preferred by the appellant was
dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 23.04.2010
passed by the learned City Civil Court, Ahmedabad.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid
judgment and decree, the appellant has preferred the
present appeal.
4. Heard learned advocate Ms. Varsha Brahmbhatt,
appearing for the appellant - original plaintiff and learned
advocate Mr. Anuj Trivedi, appearing for the respondent -
Corporation.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2502/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
5. Learned advocate Ms. Brahmbhatt has submitted
that the impugned judgment and order passed byt eh trial
court is arbitrary, unjust and contrary to the facts on
record of the case and the trial court has committed a
serious error of law while considering the facts of the
present case. She has submitted that the trial court has
not considered the deposition of the appellant recorded in
the suit and passed the impugned judgment and order
without there being any cogent and material evidence
produced on record by the respondent. Over and above
the grounds agitated in the memo of appeal, learned
advocate Ms. Brahmbhatt has urged that the present
appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment and order
passed by he trial court be quashed and set aside.
6. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Trivedi, appearing
for the respondent Corporation, has submitted that after
considering the documentary as well as oral evidence led
before the trial court and after considering the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2502/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
submissions made in the plaint as well as the notice dated
01.04.1991 at Exh.-47 that there was discrepancy in the
plot shown in the plaint and the so-called ownership as
there was no any documentary evidence produced before
the trial court which relates to the ownership of the
subject plot of land. He has submitted that as per the say
of the appellant, it was an oral agreement, whereby, he
had purchased the plot for which no witness was
examined as to from whom he had purchased the said
plot. He has further submitted that the notice at Exh.-47
relates to plot no.503, whereas, as per the say of the
appellant, he has purchased the plot bearing no.530 and
thus, there is discrepancy in the version of the appellant,
which goes to the root of the matter. Learned advocate
Mr. Trivedi has submitted that after considering all these
aspects, the trial court has rightly passed the impugned
judgment and order dismissing the suit and there is no
any infirmity or any illegality committed by the trial court
and therefore, the present appeal be dismissed and the
impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2502/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
confirmed.
7. Heard learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties and perused the material placed on
record. After considering the facts of the case and after
going through the Record & Proceedings, I am of the
opinion that there is no any infirmity in the impugned
judgment and order passed by the trial court. After
considering the evidence produced on record, the trial
court has answered the issue nos.1 and 2 in negative with
regard to the damages caused to the appellant and also
discussed relevant aspects while deciding the issue nos.3,
4 and 5. The trial court has discussed all the relevant
aspects in detail while recording the reasons in para-9, 10
and 11 with regard to the ownership of the plot in question
and subsequently, while dealing with the issue nos.3, 4
and 5, the trial court has discussed the evidence in detail
and also examined and cross-examined the witnesses in
detail. Even from the documentary as well as oral
evidence, the appellant was unable to prove the facts
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2502/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
stated in the plaint and therefore, there is no any infirmity
or any illegality committed by the trial court in passing the
impugned judgment and order.
8. In the result, the present appeal deserves to be
dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. No order as to
costs.
9. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the
concerned Court forthwith.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
Dolly
