CHHATARAM TRIKAMDAS Vs. RAJKOT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition which is filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is required to be rejected on the ground that no error of jurisdiction has been committed by the Courts below in dismissing the application Exh.5 of the petitioner. However, there is lot of substance in the sub-missions made by Mr. S.M. Amin, learned Advocate for Mr. P.M. Thakkar for the petitioner that the petitioner who is a petty vendor running his small business of foot-ware on small 'ota' of the house, has been protected by the order of this Court, first when the notice was issued on 21-12-1981 and second time on 20- 01-1982 when this petition was admitted and by virtue of that order the petitioner is not disturbed till today. He has further submitted that the suit being Regular Civil Suit No.681/80 filed in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Rajkot, is still pending before the Trial Court therefore in the interest of justice this Court should continue the order of status-quo which was granted by this Court in the year 1981 till the final disposal of the suit. This submission of Mr. Amin is required to be accepted. The petitioner has continued to carry on his small business on small 'ota' of a house without causing any obstruction to any one for the 13 years and therefore in the interest of justice the petitioner is required to be protected till the suit filed by him is finally decided by the Trial Court. Miss Vyas learned advocate appearing for the respondents no. 3 to 5 submitted that the Trial court may be directed to dispose of the suit as early as possible. In ordinary circumstances this Court would have readily accepted this submission made by Miss Vyas as the suit is quite old one. However, in this case the petitioner is a petty vendor who was earning his livelihood and maintaining his large family from the income of the small business of foot-ware on small 'ota' of a house and his business has not caused any hindrance to any one for all these 13 years and this is not that type of important case which is required to be given priority in preference to other important cases which may be pending before the Trial Court. Therefore, no direction is required to be given to the Trial Court as prayed for by Miss Vyas to dispose the suit as early as possible.

(2.) In view of the above discussion, I do not find any substance or merit in this petition and accordingly this petition fails and is dismissed. However, status-quo granted by this Court is ordered to continue till final decision of the Trial Court in the suit filed by the petitioner.

(3.) Rule discharged with the aforesaid directions.