NARAYANDAS NATHUMAL HEMRAJANI Vs. TARABEN KALIMUDDIN MULLA MITAWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. Shah for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 main contesting parties waives service of Rule. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Joint Civil Judge (J.D.), Dahod below Exh. 54 an application for appointment of Receiver under S.94(d) read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the C. P. Code for brief) in Regular Civil Suit No. 158 of 1996, the applicants - third parties have filed this revision application.

(2.) To appreciate the controversy it would be worthwhile to advert to the relevant facts giving rise to this petition. Land bearing final plot No. 109 was of ownership of one Manharlal Hakumatsinh Thakore. Out of the said land, a parcel of land admeasuring 1,532.40 square metres was sold by the original owner to the present respondent Nos. 1 to 4 - original plaintiffs. Similarly, remaining land of final plot No. 109 admeasuring 3,883.70 square metres was sold to the present petitionersthird parties. It is needless to say that, since a part of final plot No. 109 of T. P. Scheme No. 1 is sold to the respondents-plaintiffs and the remaining part is sold to the present petitioners, the lands of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 plaintiffs and the petitioners are situated adjacent to each other and, now, the land purchased by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 - plaintiffs is identified as final plot No. 109A and that of the present petitioners as 109-B.

(3.) As the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 made wire fencing around their parcel of land, the Dahod Nagarpalika original defendant in Civil Suit No. 158 of 1996 issued a notice dated 19-8-1996 to respondent Nos. 1 to 4 plaintiffs directing them to remove within a stipulated period as being unauthorised construction. Aggrieved by the said notice, respondents Nos. 1 to 4 plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Suit No. 158 of 1996 in the Court of the Civil Judge (J.D.), Dahod challenging validity of the notice and restraining the Dahod Nagarpalika from disturbing with possession of the suit land. Thus, the subject-matter of the suit is validity and legality of the act of the Dahod Nagarpalika for issuing such notice and a prayer for injunction from disturbing their possession. As alleged by the petitioners - third parties, during the course of hearing, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 plaintiffs applied for appointment of Receiver for preservation of the property contending that some third parties strangers in collusion with the defendant - Dahod Nagarpalika are trying to encroach and make illegal construction. Though the prayer for appointment of Receiver was confined to the parcel of land admeasuring 1,532.14 square metres purchased by the respondents but it transpires that the Receiver took possession of the entire parcel of land comprising final plot No. 109 out of which land admeasuring about 3,883.70 square metres is owned by the third parties-present petitioners. Feeling that the rights of the petitioners-third parties are directly affected though their property is not the subject-matter of the suit, they approached the Court and applied for stay of operation of the aforesaid order by filing objections vide Exh. 51 at Annexure-I dated 14-2-1997. Exercising inherent powers, the Court stayed till 17-2-1997 operation of the order passed on 13-2-1997 below Annexure-F application under Order 40 Rule 1.