RAMESHBHAI DHANJIBHAI PATEL Vs. VASANTLAL JAYKISHANDAS PANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the captioned Appeal from Order is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage.

(2.) Mr Viral K. Shah, learned advocate appearing for the applicant-appellant, submitted that an agreement to sell dated

(3.) 3.2011 has been executed between the parties. The applicant- appellant filed the suit with the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge being special civil suit no.381 of 2018, inter alia, praying for permanent injunction against the respondent. It is submitted that during the pendency of the suit, application order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the "Code") came to be filed. While accepting the application Order VII Rule 11, the suit came to be rejected against which, the applicant- appellant had preferred first appeal no.154 of 2022 together with civil application (for stay) before this Court and this Court, was kind enough to admit the first appeal. While admitting the first appeal, this Court, stayed the implementation of the impugned order and while doing so, it also kept it open for the applicant-appellant to request the trial court to decide and hear the application under Order 39 of the Code. The application was heard and the learned Judge, not only dismissed the Exhibit 5 application but, also passed an order of the same date, rejecting the suit as per the order passed below Exhibit 18. It is next submitted that the order dtd. 30/4/2022 passed below Exhibit 1, was in stark contradiction to the direction issued by this Court vide order dtd. 4/2/2022. It is submitted that the applicant-appellant was rendered remedyless which led to filing of Miscellaneous Civil Application no.605 of 2022. This Hon'ble Court, while disposing of the contempt application, had reserved the liberty to challenge the order in the manner known to law. It is submitted that the order, is not legally tenable inasmuch as, the same, is bereft of any reasons. Also, the observations made in paragraph 10.3, would be unwarranted. 3. Mr Hardik Dave, learned advocate appearing for the respondent, could not dispute that the observations made in paragraph 10.3, were not in the right earnest.