BHAVNABEN HARIPRASAD PANDIT Vs. BHAGWATIBEN DEVENDRA PANDIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present AO filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the CPC, the appellants - original plaintiffs challenge order dated 16.7.2019 passed below notice of motion Exh.6/7, whereby the learned Chamber Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad refused to grant protection in terms of para 11(A) of the notice of motion. Thus, the dispute pertains to one property being Tenament No.16.

(2.) It is case of the original plaintiffs that Tenament No.16 was part of the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No.3360 of 1978. Having regard to the findings recorded by the learned Chamber Judge in para 5 and 6 of the impugned order, it is quite evident that Tenament No.16 was not part of the schedule of the plaint filed in earlier suit instituted by the father of the plaintiffs. Learned advocate appearing for the appellants - original plaintiffs could not dispute this finding on the basis of any conjoint evidence so as to establish prima facie case in her favour.

(3.) In light of this position, this Court do not find any impropriety or illegality in the impugned order so as to entertain present AO, as it is devoid of merits, both on law and facts and therefore, it is hereby rejected at admission stage. Consequently connected civil application also stands disposed of.