FARHAN TASADDUKHUSAIN BARODAWALA Vs. ONALI EZAZUDDIN DHOLKAWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record.

(2.) This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dtd. 9/2/2023 of rejection of review application filed by the appellants herein to seek recall of the judgment and order dtd. 9/3/2020 passed in Special Civil Application No.13041 of 2019 and the order dtd. 23/12/2020 passed in Misc. Civil Application No.1 of 2020. To assail the order passed by the learned Single Judge, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants, who have been non-suited on the ground of locus, that the signatures put by the appellants on the panchnamas, declaration signed in favour of the transferor at the time of execution of the sale deed dtd. 24/6/2016, was a result of misrepresentation on the part of the transferor. It is submitted that as per the requirement of the provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition of Transfer of Immovable Property and Provisions of Tenants from Eviction from Premises in Disturbed Areas Act , 1991, no objection from the neighbour was required to be obtained for seeking prior permission of execution of a sale deed for an area covered by this Act. The submission is that there is a prescribed performa for the declaration, which is to be signed by a neighbour, for moving application seeking prior permission by the transferor. It is the case of the appellants that the panchnama/declaration dtd. 19/9/2016 which was admittedly signed by the appellants, is not in the prescribed format as per the statutory provisions, nor the appellants were the neighbours, who could be asked to sign the said document. The submission is, thus, that the panchnama/declaration dtd. 19/9/2016 was a result of misrepresentation on the part of the transferor. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the writ petitioner has been able to obtain a favourable order from the Writ Court by concealment of the correct facts. In order to bring the correct and complete facts before the Court, the review application was filed by the appellants herein which was illegally dismissed according to the appellants, with the costs of Rs.25,000.00.

(3.) Taking note of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants, we are required to note the findings returned by the learned Single Judge in paragraphs 18 and 19 of the decision for rejection of the review application filed by the appellants herein.