DILSHADBEGAM MIRASAHEB BUKHARI Vs. JAHANGIRKHAN MUNAWARKHAN PATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Mr. Viral K. Shah for the applicant and learned advocate Mr. S.P. Majmudar for the respondent. Perused the record.

(2.) It is unfortunate for total judicial system of the nation that for some or other reasons, at some point of time, it seems that litigants are dragging the litigation because of several procedural aspects to be followed by the court of law. Though it can be said that pros and cons i.e. advantage and disadvantage or benefits and difficulties are applicable to one and all, this is one such litigation, wherein a suit of 2005 was decided in the year 2015 and in First Appeal of 2015, when considering the overall facts and circumstances, this court has remanded the suit back for rehearing it afresh by the trial Court on certain conditions. However, while making this condition on one hand when court has to make those conditions balance enough so as to see that there may not either prejudice or disadvantage to either party, prima facie it becomes clear that opponent No.1 herein being original appellant, is not interested to put an end to old dispute, but wants to take disadvantage of procedural law. Irrespective of all other merits and demerits of the case, particularly, which is transmitted on paper before the trial Court, the sum and substance of the dispute is quite narrow and clear that present applicants are owners of the suit property with some of the litigants on record and present opponent No.1 is in possession of such suit property. It is the case of the opponent No.1 before the trial Court that some of the owners had sold the property to them and therefore, they are absolute owner of the property and not liable to pay rent of the property, though property was originally held by him as a tenant.

(3.) During such dictation, learned advocate Mr. Majmudar has interrupted the court submitting that this is not the only issue in the suit, but there are other issues. There may be some other issues raised by either of the parties, but the main crux of the matter rests between these two points only that when somebody is occupying a property as a tenant, whether amount paid by him to some of the owners without any sale-deed in their favour can be considered as an amount for purchasing the property or the amount towards accrued rent from time to time. In any case, irrespective of other issues, at present, I have no option, but to discuss only this major issue because application at present is for clarification the judgment and order dated 7.1.2016 by this court in First Appeal No.1044 of 2015 with Civil Application No.6153 of 2015. The operative order in such judgment in paragraph 13 reads as under:-