Gujarat High Court
Chandansingh Padamsingh Champawat @ ... vs Minor Mahavirsingh Bharatsingh ... on 18 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/102/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 102 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 102 of 2025
==========================================================
CHANDANSINGH PADAMSINGH CHAMPAWAT @ THAKOR SAHEB
Versus
MINOR MAHAVIRSINGH BHARATSINGH VAGHELA
==========================================================
Appearance:
LD.SR.ADV. MR.DHAVAL VYAS, MR.DHRUVIK K PATEL(7769) for the
Appellant(s) No. 1
MR GA KADRI(1876) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR NARENDRA RANAMALJI MADHU(13497) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
LD.SR.ADV. MR ASIM PANDYA, MR. ABHISHEK D JAIN(7115) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 18/06/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned Senior Counsel, Mr.Dhaval Vyas with
learned advocate Mr.Dhruvik K. Patel for the appellant and
learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Asim Pandya, with learned
advocate, Mr. Abhishek D. Jain, for the respondents.
2. The present appeal is filed under Order XLIII, Rule 1 of
the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 challenging the judgment and
order dated 05.04.2025 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Tharad,
Banaskantha below Exh.5 in Special Civil Application No.1 of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/102/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025
undefined
2022.
3. After arguing for some time, there is consensus ad idem
between the learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties, whereby, it has been observed thus:-
3.1. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Asim Pandya, under the
instructions of his client, makes a categorical statement that
the original defendant, namely, Mahavirsingh Bharatsingh
Vaghela, being minor whose guardians have been appointed as
per the Will of the late Bharatsingh, whereby no right and
authority was given to such guardians to sell the suit property.
3.2. Nonetheless, for the upbringing of the minor and to
take care of his interest, mortgage and/or other encumbrances
are permitted at the instance of the guardians.
3.3. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Asim Pandya, would state
that the guardians of the defendant minor would not deal with
the suit property as regards sale and/or creating any
encumbrances in any manner whatsoever without following due
process of law.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/102/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025
undefined
3.4. It is further observed that in a case where any
contingency arises until the defendant minor attains majority
whereby the guardians are required to deal with the suit
property for the interest of the defendant minor, a prior
intimation may be submitted in that regard to the trial court
before approaching a competent court having jurisdiction to
deal with the request of the guardian.
3.5. At this stage, the learned senior advocates appearing
for the respective parties jointly request this court that the suit
may be expedited in the interest of the parties concerned,
including the defendant, who is currently a minor.
3.6. If the parties to the suit assure the trial court and
extend their full cooperation and support, such request of the
parties may be considered sympathetically by the trial court.
3.7. An endeavour may be made by all concerned in such
eventuality, whereby the trial court can adjudicate the lis
between the parties as expeditiously as possible, preferably on
or before 30th June 2027.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/102/2025 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2025
undefined
3.8. It goes without saying that the trial court is required
to decide the lis between the parties as per the evidence
coming forth on record without being influenced by any of its
observations while rejecting the injunction application and so
also any of the observations made by this court in the present
order and the trial court is required to decide the suit on its
own merits in accordance with law.
3.9. It is made clear that this court has neither gone into
nor examined the merits of the matter and all contentions are
kept open for the respective parties.
4. In view of the aforesaid, the present application is
disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. In sequel, the
civil application is also disposed of accordingly.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J)
MOHD MONIS
