HARIBHAI DULLABHBHAI PATEL Vs. RAMJI MANDIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner was heard on 17th July, 2013, when also learned advocate for the respondents was not present. Today also, he is not here. But, as back as on 22 nd September, 2010, this Court in a detailed order, noticed absence of the learned counsel for the respondents. It thus appears that the ld. counsel for the respondents is not interested in contesting this case.

(2.) PETITIONERORIGINAL plaintiff is aggrieved by order passed below Exh.11 in Misc.Civil Appeal No. 23 of 2008 on 24 th October, 2008 by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Bharuch, whereby while upholding the order impugned before it , learned Appellate Judge imposed a condition requiring the petitioner to deposit the sale proceed in the trial Court and it was also directed to strike off a phrase in the order being "The suit land of the plaintiff in occupation and possession of the plaintiff". Plaintiff was also required to maintain the account of crops in terms of market price and intimate the same to the defendant No.2 as also to the Court.

(3.) NATURE of modifications of the trial Court's order virtually dismissed the suit in as much as the sale proceeds of whole of the crop reaped by the plaintiff has been ordered to be deposited in the trial Court, causing great deal of hardship to the plaintiff and that too without such relief being asked by the respondents. In fact, none of the reliefs as appeared in the modified orders were asked for by the respondents. The impugned order, thus is passed without jurisdiction. Therefore, it cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and setaside.