HASMUKHBHAI KANTIBHAI PATEL Vs. MAHESHBHAI HASMUKHBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This group of petitions arising out of an order almost of a similar in nature. As per the request of learned advocates appearing for respective sides, this group of matters is taken up for hearing and disposed of by way of present common judgment. The main matters have been taken up, in view of the fact that in the Civil Applications for vacating interim relief, the learned advocates have jointly submitted to take up the main matters for final disposal. Resultantly this group of petitions is taken up for hearing by treating Special Civil Application No.14434 of 2015 as lead matter and the facts are taken out from said petition.

(2.) The case in brief of Special Civil Application No.14434 of 2015 is that, petitioner is the original owner and occupier of land bearing Survey No.1614 paiki, City Survey No. 3132/3/C admeasuring 1982.5 sq. yard paikee 552.55.80 sq. mtr., more precisely described in the plaint as well as schedule attached to the impugned registered sale deed, which was said to have been purchased by one Kantilal Ambalal Patel to the petitioner by registered sale documents on 17.07.2004. It is further the case of the petitioner - original plaintiff that in the said land purported to be sold under the impugned registered documents, the petitioner is running his business in the name and style of Jai Ambe Agricultural Purchase and Sale (Kharid - Vechan) Co - Operative Society Ltd. for sale of agricultural produce and fertilizers. It is further submitted that the whole registered document is goofed up on the basis of old land record showing the name of concerned defendant for valid Form No.7/12. However, the land which is part of Gamtal has already been reflected in city survey number under the relevant notification of Gujarat Government and is being numbered as City Survey No.3133/3/C, and the said city survey number has been reflected w.e.f. 03.07.1996 and as such it has been stated that old land record was cease to exist, even though the so called documents have been executed on the basis of said land record.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Premal Nanavati appearing with learned advocate Mr. Harsh Gajjar has vehemently contended that an order which has been passed by the Court below is not only unjust and arbitrary but without taking note of relevant circumstances. Mr. Nanavati has further contended that here is the case in which the plaintiff is made the scapegoat of sons' misdeed. Actually transactions are at all not taken place. On the contrary criminal complaint has also been filed with regard to the conduct of the respondent, which lead to filing of specific charge sheet and, therefore case is made out prima facie of the offence which has been alleged against respondent and, therefore, the learned Judge ought to have consider this material circumstances before passing impugned order. It has further been submitted that here is the case in which the counter injunction application was submitted by the original defendant No.2 but then the same was to be heard along with the main injunction application. But while passing the impugned order the learned trial Judge has not come out with a specific conclusion on material aspect covering the grant or refusal of the injunction and so was the case with the appellate authority since the appellate court has also not come to specific conclusion.