SUVIDHA BUILDERS Vs. DILIPSINH PRAVINSINH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under O.43 R.1 Civil Procedure Code (CPC for short) is preferred by the appellants challenging the part of the order having adverse effect passed by the ld. Civil Judge (S.D.), Ahmedabad (Rural) while dealing with application exh.30 in Spl.Civil Suit No. 81/2001. The application exh.30 was preferred on 4.7.2003. Prior to this application Exh.30, injunction application preferred by opponent nos. 1 & 2 in another litigation namely Reg. Civil Suit No. 165/2000 in reference to the same land, was dismissed on merits on 29.6.2002, and an order passed in favour of the present appellant below exh.5, the very suit No.81/2001 was operative.

(2.) The dispute between the parties centres around the land bearing Survey No.276 of village Bodakdev, Ta: Dascroi, District:Ahmedabad ( Final Plot No.22 & 23 paiki) admeasuring about 2700 sq.mts. It is averred in the application exh.30 that original owner of the very piece of land has executed a registered sale-deed on 28.2.2000. The allegation in the application is that after ex-parte order passed by ld. Civil Judge (S.D.), Ahmedabad (Rural) in Reg. Civil Suit No.165/2000 and before the Court Commissioner could draw panchanama as to the possession of the applicants, the original plaintiff of Spl.C.A No.81/2001 by high-handed action, removed the signboard and obstructed the proceedings of the Court Commissioner. The case in the application exh.30 is that with the help of police protection, they had acquired possession of the suit land and, therefore, at least till the disposal of the suit, original plaintiff in whose favour the Court has passed the favourable interim order below exh.5 in Suit No.81 of 2001, should not be permitted to carry out any type of construction work and they also should be prevented from alienating or transferring any part of the land or the property constructed to third party.

(3.) The arguments advanced by ld. counsel appearing for the respondents (applicants of application exh.30 and defendant nos. 1 & 2 of the suitNo.81/2001) is that if the parties are not asked to maintain status quo qua possession and title of the suit property, then the applicants of above-said application exh.30 would suffer irreparable loss and remedy would be frustrated. At one point of time, it is argued by ld. Sr.Counsel Mr. Y.N.Oza that the order under challenge passed by ld. Civil Judge is a prudent order and parties should be relegated to the trial court for appropriate directions to try and decide both the suits i.e. Reg.Civil Suit No.165/2000 and Spl.Civil Suit No.81/2001 simultaneously.