ANIL PRAFULBHAI GAJJAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present Appeal From Order under Order XLIII, Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellant ­ original plaintiff has challenged an order dated 20.6.2016 passed below application Exh.5 of learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gandhidham, Kachchh (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Trial Court') in Special Civil Suit No.12 of 2014 by which the learned Trial Judge has rejected the injunction application of the appellant.

(2.) The brief facts arise from the record are as under :-

(3.) Mr. Vishal T. Patel, learned advocate appearing for the appellant would submit that the appellant is the nephew of the said Manubhai Gajjar. Manubhai Gajjar had no issues and, therefore, he was handling all the properties belonged to Manubhai Gajjar. He would further submit that the factory situated in the GIDC was maintained by the appellant himself and, therefore, the deceased Manubhai Gajjar had executed a Will in his favour on 14.9.2013. He would further submit that the Will dated 14.9.2013 was notarized and is subsequent to the Will dated 2.9.2013 which was executed in favour of the said Sarlaben, widow of Manubhai Gajjar. He would further submit that the appellant had developed the factory and is earning his bread and butter from the factory and if the said property is transferred in the name of the respondent No.8 ­ Sarlaben by GIDC, there would be irreparable loss to him. He would further submit that if the Electric Company is not directed to reconnect the electricity supply, the factory would not be restarted and, therefore, the appellant would not be able to earn his livelihood from the said factory. He would further submit that if the bank accounts of deceased Manubhai Gajjar are permitted to be operated by Sarlaben widow of Manubhai, then the appellant will not be entitled to get the said amount which has been earned by deceased Manubhai that too with the help of the appellant and it would be irreparable loss to the appellant. He, therefore, would submit that the learned Trial Court has erred in rejecting the application Exh.5 and ought to have allowed application Exh.5 and ought to have restrained the respondents from dealing with the property and operating the bank accounts till the final disposal of the suit. He, therefore, would submit that the impugned order be quashed and set aside and injunction as prayed for by the appellant in application Exh.5 may be granted.