LAWS(GJH)-2017-3-620

NATVARLAL DAYABHAI DARJI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On March 28, 2017
Natvarlal Dayabhai Darji Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant-original plaintiff under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code being aggrieved with the impugned judgment and order rendered in Regular Civil Appeal No.18/2010 by the Principal District Judge, Jamnagar dated 23.08.2012 as well as the order passed in Regular Civil Suit No.57/2008 by the 6th Additional Sr. Civil Judge, Jamnagar dated 11.01.2010 posing the substantial questions of law as follows:-

(2.) The background of the facts briefly summarized are as follow:- The original plaintiff filed aforesaid Regular Civil Suit No.57/2008 for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants. It is contended that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit land situated at Village : Kanalus, Taluka : Lalpur, District : Jamnagar. It is also contended that the land was allotted to him by the Government, for which, entry was also made in the revenue record as Entry Nos.814 and 1251. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit which was filed by the plaintiff for declaration and injunction, the respondent no.3-original defendant no.3 made an application for joining party, which was rejected and, thereafter as per the order passed by this High Court allowing the prayer for joining party respondent, he has been added as defendant no.3. Thereafter, the respondent no.3-original defendant no.3 made an application for rejection of the plaint and the Court below passed an order rejecting the plaint. Therefore appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No.18/2010 came to be preferred, which also came to be dismissed. Therefore, the present Second Appeal has been preferred posing the substantial questions of law as stated above.

(3.) Heard learned advocate, Shri S.P. Majmudar for the appellant, learned AGP Shri P.P. Banaji for the respondent no.1 and learned advocate, Shri Keyur Gandhi for Nanavati Advocate for the respondent no.3.