MURLIDHAR EDUCATION TRUST MANEKVADA Vs. KUVADIYA JETHABHAI VALABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Mr. Ashish Dagli, learned Advocate waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 1. Mr. Amit Patel, learned Advocate waives service of rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 4 and Mr. Hemang Raval, learned Advocate waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No. 3. With the consent of the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing today.

(2.) BY way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner herein - original defendant No. 4 has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and/or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Court i. e. learned Presiding Officer, 4th Fast Track Court, Junagadh dated 02. 03. 2009 passed below Exh. 8 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2009 by which the the learned Appellate Court has refused to grant stay of the judgment and decree dated 22. 01. 2009 passed by the learned trial Court below Exh. 8 in Regular Civil Suit No. 634 of 1997 during the pendency and final disposal of the aforesaid appeal.

(3.) MR. ASHISH Dagli, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 herein main contesting party- original plaintiff has submitted that if suitable direction is given directing the learned Appellate Court to decide and dispose of appeal at the earliest, respondent No. 1- original plaintiff will not invite any reasoned order while allowing present Special Civil Application and staying further implementation and operation of the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial impugned in that appeal. However, he has submitted that same may be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of respondent No. 1 in that appeal. In view of above this Court is not assigning any detailed reasoned order in support of allowing present Special Civil Application. Suffice it to say that the petitioner herein is running school on the premises in question / village in question since 1997 and during pendency of the suit there was no relief and thereafter, decree came to be passed which is challenged by the petitioner before the learned Appellate Court. Under the circumstances it appears to the Court that the learned Appellate Court ought to have granted interim relief by staying further implementation and operation of judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court, otherwise the appeal would become infructuous.