JIVRAJBHAI VIRABHAI Vs. PANACHAND LADHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed for the purpose of challenging the legality and validity of an order dated 17.12.2018 passed below Exh.146 in Regular Civil Suit No.264 of 2010.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the petitioners, who are the original plaintiffs, who filed a suit, being Regular Civil Suit No.264 of 2010 with respect to an agriculture land, bearing Revenue Survey No.588 paikki 10 admeasuring 56656 square meters, situated at village-Chela, District- Jamnagar, executed by Shri Panachand Ladha and his brothers upon receipt of consideration of Rs.34,000/- in respect of the said subject land and the petitioners submitted that the agreement to sell came to be executed by power of attorney holder Shri Bhagwanjibhai Kacharabhai and possession was parted with since then i.e. from the date of agreement to sell, are in peaceful and uninterrupted possession and these agreement to sell are forming part of the record of the suit at Exh.102 and Exh.103. The land has been made cultivable by the aforesaid investment of huge amount by the petitioners and taking note of such situation, during pendency of the main suit proceedings, the learned Civil Court was pleased to grant interim injunction application at Exh.5, by an order dated 20.10.2011, which has attained finality till disposal of the suit.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr.Rajesh K.Savjani appearing for the petitioners has contended that the order in question is absolutely unjust and arbitrary and contrary to the statutory provisions contained under the Act. It has further been contended that when a request came to be made by the petitioners, it was obligatory on the part of the Court to examine the statutory provisions contained under Section 33 of the Act as well as Section 2 (g) of the Act which defines "conveyance" and the same should have been dealt with in relation to Article 20(a) of the Act, and therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is not just and proper and that jurisdictional error deserves to be corrected by passing appropriate order in present proceedings.