HIRENBHAI SURESHBHAI PATEL Vs. BABULAL JIVRAJBHAI SANGANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned senior advocate Mr.Mehul Suresh Shah assisted by learned advocate Mr.Parth Bhatt for the petitioners and learned advocate Mr.Anuj Trivedi for the respondent.

(2.) The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, arises from order dated 15th June, 2018 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Gandhinagar, whereby the learned Judge allowed application Exh.31 of the plaintiff for adjournment. The Court below observed that it was not going into the merits of the application Exh.5 which was pending, however taking recourse to section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the parties were directed to maintain status quo with regard to the suit properties. 2. 1 Original defendant Nos.1 and 2 have sought to assail the said order below Exh.31 impugning the same in the present petition.

(3.) The original plaintiff - respondent herein as well as the petitioners - defendants are the Directors of a private company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 in the name of Landmark Prodevelopers Private Limited, which is engaged in the business of infrastructure development and real estate. A construction scheme in the name and style of 'Landmark Living' was floated by the company in the year 2014. It appears that a dispute arose between the Directors. 3. 1 The case of the petitioners herein is that in connivance, plaintiff raise false bills and invoices in the accounts of the company. This led institution of Regular Civil Suit No.75 of 2018 by the respondent - plaintiff praying for relief of declaration and permanent injunction to restrain the petitioners - defendants from dealing with the suit properties of the company by way of sale, transfer, alienation and creation of any encumbrance, etc. 3. 2 Application Exh.5 for interim injunction was filed in the aforesaid suit which is pending. It was further stated that the petitioners have also preferred an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground that the suit of the plaintiff is barred in view of Section 430 of the Companies Act. The said application was rejected by the learned Judge, against which order dated 24th May, 2018 passed below Exh.19, the petitioners have preferred Civil Revision Application No.356 of 2018 before this Court. 3. 3 The above Civil Revision Application is pending having been subjected to issuance of notice, "Notice returnable on 11th of June 2018. In the meantime, if an application for adjournment of suit proceedings is made, the trial Court shall adjourn the said proceedings to the 12th of June 2018. Direct service today is permitted." Thus the proceedings were adjourned to 12th June, 2018 and thereafter, it appears that that due to leave note, the proceedings of the Civil Revision Application was adjourned to 19th June, 2018. 3. 4 In the said application Exh.31, the defendants mentioned as a ground, about issuance of notice in the Revision Application by this Court and the date on which the proceedings of the Revision Application was adjourned, that is 19th June, 2018. Further, it was stated by the defendants that the court has extended the observations about the adjourning the proceedings and that the order was awaited. 3. 5 The application Exh.31 was contested on behalf of the respondent - plaintiff who submitted that on one hand application Exh.5 for interim injunction was kept pending before the court and on the other hand, the defendants had been conducting themselves to prolong the proceedings and in the meantime the defendants had been also indulging into the acts of transferring the properties. 3. 6 The learned Judge observed that if the suit properties were transferred, it would frustrate the proceedings of Exh.5 which was still to be decided after hearing both the sides. Therefore on this reason, while granting adjournment as prayed for in application Exh.31, the learned Judge invoked the powers under section 151, CPC and directed both the sides to maintain status quo with regard to the suit properties. 3. 7 This Court issued notice on 04th July, 2018 making it returnable on 24th July, 2018 by directing that further proceedings of the suit shall remain stayed. Before the said returnable date arrived, the original petitioners moved Civil Application on 18th July, 2018 seeking clarification of the interim order passed by this Court. The said intervening Civil Application was found to be no well taken, to say the least. It prima facie appeared to be an attempt by the defendants to take undue advantage of the interim stay granted by this Court while issuing notice. 3. 8 The said Civil Application No.01 of 2018 resulted into following order passed by this Court.