(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE) Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mihir Joshi appearing with learned advocate Mr. Hriday Buch for the applicants and learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mihir Thakor appearing with learned advocate Mr. Ashish Dagli for the opponents.
2. The applicants' suit was based on their claim of possession of property challenging the sale deed, wherein, there was an averment that possession is given. The suit is opposed by the defendants. During pendency of the suit, the trial Court ordered status-quo to be maintained by the parties. The said order was extended by consent of the parties till final disposal of the suit.
2.1 During interregnum period, an application was moved by the defendants for amendment in the written statement alleging that the plaintiffs have dispossessed the defendants during pendency of the suit. That request was turned down, which was persuade by the defendants - opponents herein up to this Court, where also, they lost.
2.2 Ultimately, the trial Court, for the reasons recorded in the judgment, came to the conclusion that the possession of the suit property was with the defendants and not with the plaintiffs and ultimately, dismissed the suit. The trial Court also observed that even if the plaintiffs were in possession, the possession would not be legal. On a request by the plaintiffs - applicants herein, the trial Court extended the status-quo for a period of thirty days from the date of judgment, which was passed on November 19, 2011. It is the case of the applicants that on November 21, 2011, the applicants - plaintiffs were dispossessed by the defendants - opponents herein forcibly and that is how, contempt is committed.
3. On the other hand, the case of the defendants - opponents herein is that they have been in possession. Besides the fact that the plaintiffs have preferred an appeal before Appellate Court viz., District Court, Rajkot, which is seized of the question and would be able to decide as to who was actually in possession on the date of judgment and if need be, by permitting parties to lead evidence on this question, if the applicants approach that Court with appropriate application and therefore, this application may not be entertained. It is also contended that an application under Order 39 Rule 2A of C.P.C. was preferred by the defendants alleging contempt by the other side. It has been dismissed. Against which, appeal is preferred, which is pending.
4. In the backdrop of above disputed questions of fact and conflict claims and material on record, it would be difficult and possibly not appropriate for this Court to conclude whether a contempt is committed or is not committed. We, therefore, do no entertain this application, leaving it open for the applicants to approach District Court concerned for redressal of the grievance as may be permissible under law. The application stands disposed of.
Sd/-
[A.L.
Dave, J.] Sd/-
[Mohinder Pal, J.] #MH Dave Top