RAVI CONSTRUCTION Vs. KAMLESH SHANKARBHAI SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The review and recall of the order dated 10.12.2019 rendered in Appeal from Order No. 218 of 2019 by this court is sought under section 114 read with order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( for short 'C.P.C').

(2.) Before rival submissions are appreciated, it would be apt to note the broad facts that this court reflected in the order under review. The court was conscious of the fact that certain sale deeds were under challenge in the suit. The court was also conscious about further relief against original defendant no.3 that the said defendant should not act contrary to the development agreement earlier entered into by him with the plaintiff; under the name and style of "Ravi Construction Nadiad". Thereafter this court noted the existence of Ravi Construction, Nadiad, preceding the constitution of "Ravi Construction at Halol" where Mr. Anesh Rajnikant Shah was a common partner. This Court also noted the pivotal dispute between the plaintiff and defendant no.3 as also the absence of privity of contract between the plaintiff and other defendants. This court also noted the sale of 232 units by Ravi Construction, by then. A recital in the sale-deeds binding the purchaser to get the plot developed by plaintiff was also noticed. The argument that no parallel agreement after the agreement between plaintiff and defendant no.3 was permissible was also noted. This court then assumed the prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff but rejected the appeal from order for the plaintiff's failure to make out a case on one of the prime considerations under Order 39 of C.P.C., i.e. no injunction would follow if the compensation can be an adequate relief. This court also took a note of the fact that Anesh Shah being a common partner in both the firms i.e. Ravi Construction Nadiad and Ravi Construction Halol, was loser in one firm and gainer in another firm and thus after considering the above-referred facts the appeal from order under Order 43 of the CPC was dismissed.

(3.) Attention of this court has been drawn to the material on record of Appeal from order to show that the aforesaid broad facts were based on such material. This court also finds the pencil markings on such material referred to by the learned counsels.