BAVUBHAI DHANABHAI Vs. PARMAR BHAVANBHAI NANJIBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed by the petitioners by challenging the impugned order dtd. 7/5/2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhrangadhra in Civil Misc. Appeal No.14 of 2014 filed by the present petitioners as well as impugned order dtd. 19/7/2014 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Patdi below Exh.5 in Regular Civil Suit No.45 of 2014 filed by the present petitioners.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioners, who are original plaintiffs, that petitioners have filed suit pertains to land situated at Survey No.349 paiki of Gamtal of village Gavana by submitting that the petitioners are using traverse (Vada) of Gamtal of village Gavana since the time of their forefathers and such land is in possession of the petitioners, which were occupied by their forefathers since last more than 60 years. It is the case of the petitioners in the suit that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 taking law in their hand entered into the Vada land of the petitioners stating that that Vada land is allotted to them by the Government and the respondent No.3 and started making construction on Vada land. The petitioners therefore, filed Regular Civil Suit No.45 of 2014 for declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that it May be declared that the petitioners are the owners of the suit land. In the suit, the petitioners have filed that the petitioners are the owner of the suit land. In that petition, the petitioners have filed application at Exh.5 for interim injunction, which came to be rejected by order dtd. 19/7/2014 and against that the petitioners have preferred Civil Misc. Appeal No.14 of 2014 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhrangadhra, which has also been dismissed by judgment and order dtd. 7/5/2015, therefore, the present petition is preferred. 2.1 On 24/6/2015, notice was issued. Thereafter, there is no interim protection granted in the present petition.

(3.) Learned advocate Ms. Varsha Brahmbhatt appearing for the respondent Nos.1 & 2 has strongly opposed the prayer made by the petitioners in the suit as well as in the appeal.