CHIMALAL PESSUMAL CHANDANI SINCE DECD THRO HEIRS Vs. JAYENDRABHAI PRAHLADRAM BHATT DECD THRO HEIRS AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts of this case will justify that the comment offered about the Indian Judicial System long back is not unjustified. The comment is that, 'real difficulties of the parties to the litigation start only when they get decree from the court'. Present is the glaring example justifying the aforesaid comment. One, Shri Jayendrabhai Prahladram Bhatt, who unfortunately died on 23.08.2012, to his misfortune, showed some sympathy to one, Shri Chimanlal Pessumal Chandani somewhere in the year 1977, by allowing him to use his house on human considerations. This happened because after having got the property in question constructed with all dreams in his eyes, deceased - Shri Jayendrabhai Prahladram Bhatt shifted to the new premises, but as the house was situated far off from the inhabited area, on an unfortunate event taking place (murder of some neighbour), deceased - Shri Jayendrabhai Prahladram Bhatt in his worldly wisdom thought it fit to allow the property to remain vacant, shifted to rented premises in Bajwada, where he was residing earlier. As the property was lying vacant, said Shri Chimanlal Pessumal Chandani took advantage of the same and invoked sympathies of late Shri Jayendrabhai Prahladram Bhatt and entered into the premises. This entry of Chimanlal Pessumal Chandani again justified the saying that, "Fools build houses and wise people live in". Till date, though Chimanlal Pessumal 4Chandani has left for heavenly abode, his two sons are still holding possession of the said property.

(2.) SUBSEQUENTLY , late Shri Jayendrabhai Prahladram Bhatt had to start innings in courts. He filed Rent Suit No.138 of 1983 in the Civil Court at Vadodara, which came to be disposed on only on 30.08.1997. As no litigation stops at the first stage, Regular Civil Appeal No.89 of 1997 was filed which came to be disposed of on 26.08.2005. The High Court not being very far from Vadodara, the matter was carried in Revision Application and Civil Revision Application No.349 of 2005 was filed, which was heard and disposed of by judgment and order dated 23.01.2006. As usual, there was a request which is recorded and rejected in para 10 of the judgment and order, which is reproduced for ready perusal:

(3.) IF the agonies of the landlord were to come to end with this rejection of Civil Revision Application, then possibly the aforesaid comment would not have stood justified. Therefore, soon after rejection of the Civil Revision Application, Misc. Civil application came to be filed, which is under consideration of this Court in this order, alleging that the decree is obtained by fraud and therefore, relief prayed for in para 21(B) is required to be granted. Said prayer clause reads as under: