MANGALBHAI BHIKHABHAI RATHOD Vs. CHIMANBHAI BHIKHABHAI RATHOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petitioners-original defendants are legal heirs of Mangalbhai Bhikhabhai Rathod in the Regular Civil Suit No.604 of 2010 pending before the learned Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur. Along with the suit, present respondents- original plaintiffs submitted an application for temporary injunction at Ex.5. Said injunction application was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 8-7-2011. Hence, the original plaintiff preferred appeal being Civil Misc. Appeal No.99 of 2011 before the appellate court and appellate court has allowed said appeal vide order dated 6-9-2012 by quashing and setting aside the order dated 8-7- 2011 passed by the trial court below Ex.5. Hence, this petition.

(2.) THIS Court (Coram: Anant S.Dave,J.) passed the following order on 22-10-2012:

(3.) IT is submitted by Mr.Mehul Shah that name of father of present petitioners entered into revenue record in 1974 as he was a tenant of the disputed property and till then, land in question was running in the name of father of the petitioners. It is also submitted that this entry was not challenged before any authority and proceedings under Sec.32(g) of the Tenancy Act were also initiated. Thereafter in 2010, the present suit was filed by the present respondent-plaintiffs against the petitioners- defendants without explaining the reasons for the delay caused in filing the suit. It is further submitted that considering the documentary evidence on record and the submissions of learned advocates for the parties, trial court, after discussing each and every aspect, has not granted interim relief which is legal and proper. The appellate court has held that dispute is pending and, therefore, without recording the evidence, it could not be decided as to whether the property is a joint family property or is the property of late Mangalbhai and without giving any reasons as far as delay aspect is concerned allowed the appeal and, therefore, it is submitted that order passed by the appellate court requires to be quashed and set aside and this petition deserves to be allowed.