JAGDISHCHANDRA BHULABHAI PATEL Vs. CHHIMNIBEN KESHAVBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Civil Revision Application (C.R.A.) is filed against an order passed by the learned District Judge, Surat, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 58 of 1992 on 1-12-2001 reversing the order passed by the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge (J.D.), Surat, on 25-2-1992 in an application below Exhs. 5 and 24 filed by the original-plaintiffs and in application below Exh. 59 filed by the original-defendant No. 4 in Regular Civil Suit No. 906 of 1991. By virtue of that order, the injunction prayed for by the application below Exh. 24 was granted and the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 were restrained from entering or trespassing into the disputed property till the final disposal of the suit. The present Civil Revision Application is filed by the original-defendant No. 4 who was not initially joined as a party in the suit, but subsequently under an order passed below Exh. 23, the present petitioner was joined as defendant No. 4 in the said suit. The present respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are the original-plaintiffs and they have filed Regular Civil Suit No. 906 of 1991 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Surat against the present respondent Nos. 6 to 8 who are the original-defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in the said suit. The original-plaintiffs have filed the said suit against the defendants for a declaration and injunction on the ground that land bearing Revenue Survey Nos. 70 and 71 of Block No. 89 admeasuring 9510 sq. metres is of H.U.F. property, and Keshavlal Kanjibhai was the Manager of H.U.F. As per the averments made in the plaint, the property was purchased under Sec. 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, in the name of Keshavlal Kanjibhai as Manager and Karta of his family. Keshavlal expired on 30-12-1987 and the plaintiffs were the legal heirs of Keshavlal Kanjibhai and they were in possession of the disputed property and were cultivating the said land. It is also the case of the original-plaintiffs that even if the property was considered to be the individual property of Shri Keshavlal Kanjibhai, in that case also as legal heirs of late Shri Keshavlal Kanjibhai, the plaintiffs were entitled to protect their rights and the defendants were not in any relation with the plaintiffs, and hence, they have no right to disturb the possession of the plaintiffs. However, the defendants were acting in collusion and wanted to disturb the possession of the plaintiffs and to protect their possession, the plaintiffs have filed the above suit against the defendants for declaration and injunction.

(2.) . In the said suit, the plaintiffs moved an application Exh. 5 against the defendants seeking temporary injunction against them. Application Exh. 14 was preferred by the defendant No. 1 against the plaintiffs. Application Exh. 24 was preferred by the plaintiffs against the defendant No. 4 and application Exh. 39 was preferred by the defendant No. 4 against the plaintiffs. The learned trial Judge has rejected the application Exh. 5 refusing to grant interim relief against the defendant Nos. 1 to 3. The learned trial Judge has also rejected the application Exh. 24 refusing to grant injunction against the defendant No. 4. The learned trial Judge has also rejected the application Exh. 14 preferred by the defendant No. 1 against the plaintiffs. However, the learned trial Judge has granted the application Exh. 39 preferred by the defendant No. 4 against the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs were directed not to interfere with or not to take away any possession without due process of law till the final disposal of the suit. The defendant No. 4 was also directed not to transfer the said property to others pending the disposal of the suit so as to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings. The learned trial Judge, vide his order dated 25-2-1992, had therefore, disposed of the applications Exhs. 5 and 14, and 24 and 39.

(3.) . Being aggrieved by the said order, original-plaintiffs have filed Misc. Civil Appeal No. 58 of 1992 before the Court of learned District Judge at Surat, who vide his order dated 1st December, 2001 allowed the said appeal and set aside the order passed below Exh. 5, Exh. 24 and Exh. 39 by the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Surat in Regular Civil Suit No. 906 of 1991. The learned District Judge has also quashed and set aside the order passed by the learned trial Judge in an application below Exh. 39 filed by the defendant No. 4. By virtue of that order, the interim injunction prayed for in applications Exhs. 5 and 24 by the plaintiffs in the above suit was granted and the same was ordered to remain in operation till the final disposal of the suit. The defendant Nos. 1 to 4 were restrained from entering or trespassing into the disputed property till the final disposal of the suit. It is this order, which is under challenge in the present C.R.A. filed by the original-defendant No. 4 in the Regular Civil Suit No. 906 of 1991.