DALVADI JAGDISHBHAI CHHOTABHAI Vs. PARMAR SAROJBEN CHATURBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed for the purpose of seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that father of respondent No.1 had executed a 'banakhat' in favour of father of present petitioners on 22.6.1981 and thereafter on 23.1.2015, respondent No.1 had sold the said property to respondent No.2 by way of registered sale deed and on account of that, the controversy generated amongst the parties which has resulted into filing of a complaint before Waghodia Police Station on 23-1-2015 which ultimately led the petitioners to file Regular Civil Suit No. 11 of 2015 along with an injunction application below Exh.5 for protecting the possession of the suit land. However, said application has been rejected by the trial court which is made the subject matter of present petition.

(3.) Mr. Nirav C. Bhatt, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that both the courts below, without examining the material produced on record and without considering the Court Commissioner's report have come to an erroneous conclusion, as a result of this, order in question deserves to be corrected. It has further been contended that Court Commissioner's report which has been prepared with the consent of parties is indicating the factum of possession of the petitioners and hence, during the pendency of the suit proceedings, the possession of the petitioners ought to have been protected. It has further been contended that both the courts below have materially erred in appreciating documentary evidences and has adopted too technical measure without realising that on account of non-grant of interim relief, an irreversible situation will be created, hence, courts below have not exercised jurisdiction in its proper perspective, as a result of this, such a serious error of jurisdiction deserves to be corrected. Mr. Bhatt has further contended that even the reasons which are assigned by the courts below are not sufficient enough to justify the conclusion and since the findings being perverse to the record, there is hardly any case made out to justify the conclusion. No other submissions have been made.