JYOTSNABEN HARENDRABHAI GAMI Vs. UMEDBHAI RAICHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner instituted a Civil Suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 62 of 1985 in the Court of Civil Judge, (J.D.), Patan against the respondent for possession of the suit property on the ground that the suit property was not being used by the respondent for the purpose of carrying on business and that the suit property was not being used by the respondent without any reasonable cause for a period of more than six months immediately preceding the date of filing of the suit. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff on 23.10.1991. Being aggrieved by the said decree, the respondent preferred an appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No. 171 of 1991 in the Court of District Judge, Mehsana. The appellate Court set aside the judgement and decree passed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the said action, the present revision is preferred.

(2.) Mr. Viral Dave, learned Advocate appearing for Mr. D.C. Dave for the petitioner submitted that the appellate Court committed an error in reversing the well reasoned order passed by the trial Court after considering the documentary as well as oral evidence in detail. He submitted that the trial Court after considering the electricity bill and the panchnama prepared by the Court commissioner came to the conclusion that the factum of non -user of the suit property by the respondent for a period exceeding six months immediately preceding the date of filing of the suit is proved beyond doubt.

(3.) Mr. Suthar, learned Advocate appearing for Mr. N.K. Majmudar for the respondent supported the order of the appellate Court and submitted that the trial Court brushed aside the Court commissioner's report and instead proceeded on the assumption gathered on the basis of the electricity bills and the endorsement made thereon. He submitted that the appellate Court has given a finding on the said issues which is in consonance with law and therefore the order is just and proper.