SANJAY RATANSING THACKER Vs. ARIHANT TRADE LINK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals have been filed against the common order dated 17/10/2000 made by the learned Single Judge in First Appeal No.564 of 2000 and First Appeal No.779 of 2000. The appellants in both these Letters Patent Appeals are original plaintiffs of Special Civil Suit No.109 of 1998 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhuj. The parties shall be referred hereinafter as per their respective description in the suit.

(2.) The plaintiffs had filed the suit seeking declaration that as they were holders of plot of land bearing no.53 allotted to them by defendant no.1 (GIDC), the plaintiffs were having priority to be allotted plot of land on the southern side of the plot held by the plaintiffs; a further declaration to the effect that GIDC cannot allot the said plot to anyone else overlooking priority of the plaintiffs and that the said plot of land should be allotted to the plaintiffs after charging the fees as per Rules; a further prayer was also made that the defendant No.1 cannot close the road on southern side of plot no.53 held by the plaintiffs nor transfer the said land to any one else. It was also prayed that the plaintiffs are having access both from the northern side and southern side of plot no.53 and defendant No.1 - GIDC should be restrained permanently from preventing the plaintiffs from using the said access. It was also prayed that the defendant GIDC should be injuncted from parting with the plot of land on the southern side of plot no.53 in favour of any other person in any manner whatsoever.

(3.) Defendant No.1-GIDC filed its written statement and stated that the said plot of land bearing no. 162 on the southern side of the plot of the plaintiffs had already been allotted to one Arihant Tade Link. The plaintiffs therefore sought permission to implead the said party as defendant no.2 and the prayer having been granted, defendant no.2 came to be joined as a necessary party. The pleadings were completed, the suit was finally heard and decided after taking evidence and decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. It is an admitted position that no prayer seeking any relief against defendant no.2 was made by the plaintiffs even after impleading the said party as a necessary party.