1 Heard Mr. B.J.Shelat, learned Senior Counsel with Mr.
J.F.Mehta appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S.M.Shah, learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.7.
2 By way of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the original plaintiff – judgment creditor has challenged the Order dated 13.1.2006 passed by the learned 7th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Ahmedabad, below Exhibits – 156, 159, 162 and 164 in Special Darkhast No. 65 of 1989 which arose from the judgment and decree passed in Special Civil Suit No. 83 of 1981.
3 Application-Exhibit-156 was filed by the present petitioner against original defendants No.1 to 6, who are respondents No.1 to 6 in the petition, (they were subsequently deleted from the petition vide order dated 14.7.2011) with a prayer that the Court Commissioner shall be appointed to execute the sale deed in favour of the judgment creditor pursuant to the decree passed in Special Civil Suit No. 83 of 1981 which has become final.
4 Respondent No.7 filed an Objection Application below Exhibit-159 and prayed that the possession of the disputed property shall not be taken over from the society. Another Applications Exhibit-162 and 164 were filed by the respondent No.7 society with various prayers. It is pertinent to note that a Civil Suit, being Special Civil Suit No. 72 of 2000 filed by the petitioner against the respondent No.7 is pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (SD), Ahmedabad (Rural), Ahmedabad.
5 All the aforesaid applications were heard together by the learned Trial Court and by Order dated 31.2.2006, the learned Trial Court granted the application Exhibit-159 filed by the respondent No.7 and all other applications were dismissed. Learned Advocate Mr.Shah appearing for the respondent No.7, who had filed application - Exhibit-159, submits that he does not press this Application and seeks permission to withdraw the same. Though, all other applications, which were filed either by the petitioner or by the respondents, were dismissed by the learned Trial Court, the respondent No.7 has not challenged the order passed below Applications Exhibit-162 and Exhibit -164.
6 By way of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the Order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the application - Exhibit-156 which was filed by the petitioner as well as the order granting the application-Exhibit-159, which was filed by the respondent No.7. In absence of respondents No. 1 to 6, against whom the application - Exhibit-156 was filed, this Court would not pass any adverse order against them since the learned Advocate for the respondent No.7, who had filed the application-Exhibit-159, has not pressed the said application and sought permission to withdraw the same. Hence, nothing remains in the present matter.
7 In the aforesaid premises, the respondent No.7 is permitted to withdraw the application–Exhibit-159 filed by him before the learned Trial Court and the observations made in the Order dated 13.1.2006 with regard to the said application shall be considered as ineffective. Consequently, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner does not press this petition and, hence, the present petition stands disposed of as not pressed. However, it will be open for the parties to file any appropriate proceedings before the appropriate court including in the pending proceedings between the parties.
8 It is needless to say that this Court has not decided the matter on merits on the question of the rights of the parties on the disputed property. The Trial Court shall decide the applications, if it is filed by either parties, in accordance with law without being influenced by this order. Rule is discharged. Interim relief granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated.
(A.J. DESAI, J.) pnnair