DURGABEN Vs. SABARMATI HARIJAN ASHRAM TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. K.V. Shelat, learned advocate appearing for the applicant and Mr. Kamal Trivedi, learned Advocate General appearing for Mr. G.H. Virk, learned advocate appearing on caveat for the opponent No.8.

(2.) The revisionist - applicant herein is the original plaintiff having preferred HRP Suit No.110 of 2022 before the learned Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad, for declaration as a tenant and injunction that the possession of the plaintiff tenant should not be disturbed or dispossessed without following due process of law. Ad-interim relief came to be granted in the said proceedings below Exh.6 of maintaining status-quo qua the suit property, which has continued. The defendants - opponents herein gave Exh.30 application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 containing that the learned Small Causes Court does not have jurisdiction to grant relief and that, the suit be rejected. On behalf of the revisionist - plaintiff, the advocate for the plaintiff submitted arguments; both for Exh.6 interim injunction application and application below Exh.30 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

(3.) Mr. K.V. Shelat, learned advocate appearing for the revisionist, submitted that ex-parte ad-interim relief which has continued since 7/4/2022 i.e. the inception of the HRP No.110 of 2022 below Exh.6, be continued till the Exh.6 application and the application below Order VII Rule 11 below Exh.30 are decided by the learned Small Causes Court. It is submitted that the learned Appellate Court has erred in confirming the order passed by the Small Causes Court below Exh.60 vacating the ex-parte status-quo. It is submitted that the learned advocate appearing for the revisionist on 30/4/2024 made a statement before the learned Appellate Bench that the plaintiff is ready to proceed with the application below Exh.30 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the application below Exh.6 being injunction application, pending the suit within a week and that, the direction be given to the learned Small Causes Court to hear and decide pending applications till then, the status quo granted by the learned Appellate Bench be continued. However, the Appellate Bench stated that during the pendency of the appeal, why the parties have not proceeded with the suit. It is submitted that while passing the impugned order, the Appellate Court has relied on the direction in Special Civil Application No.16879 of 2023 regarding determination of compensation, which is factually incorrect in view of the fact that the revisionist had applied and the order of the Collector determining the compensation is subject matter of challenge in Special Civil Application No.851 of 2024, which is pending and subjudice. Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted that the impugned order dtd. 4/5/2024 passed by the learned Appellate Court, be quashed and set aside.