GADHIYA ABDULHAMID AHMEDBHAI MUMAN Vs. MUMAN UMARBHAI VALIBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have challenged the order dated 30.1.2008 passed by the learned Court below Exh.13. In the said order, the learned Court has recorded as follows: -

(2.) FROM the said observations and findings recorded by the learned trial Court, it transpires that the request for drawing panchnama came to be made by the plaintiff without there being any proper and necessary averments justifying or warranting such order, in the plaint. Since there were no supporting and necessary averments in the plaint, as found by the learned Court on perusal of the plaint, the learned Court considered it inappropriate to issue directions for drawing panchnama with regard to the issue, which was not in the plaint. In the such circumstances and facts, there does not appear to be any manifest error or apparent illegality in the order of the learned Court and that therefore, there is no reason to interfere with such purely discretionary and interlocutory order in a petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the petition does not deserve to be entertained. It would, however, be open for the plaintiff to make necessary averments, if permissible in law and in accordance with law and if so permitted by the learned Court, and thereafter may make necessary application before the learned Court.

(3.) WITH the aforesaid observations and clarification, present petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.