1. Heard Mr. Anandjiwala, learned advocate for the applicant, Mr. Qureshi, learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Ms. Raval, learned APP for the respondent No.6.
2. The applicant who is original respondent No.2 in main petition being Criminal Misc. Application No.13137 of 2011 has taken out present application.
In present application the applicant i.e. original respondent No.2 has prayed that interim relief granted by the Court in main petition being Criminal Misc. Application No.13137 of 2011 may be vacated.
Learned advocate for the original petitioners i.e. opponent Nos. 1 to 5 in this application submitted that the main petition i.e. Criminal Misc. Application No.13137 of 2011 was actually admitted by the Hon'ble Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anant S. Dave) vide order dated 31.1.2012 and by the same order the Court directed that interim relief shall enure until final disposal of the petition. However, the word Rule is missing in the said order dated 31.1.2012. The said order dated 31.1.2012 reads thus:-
Even bare allegations and nature of transaction mentioned in the complaint would reveal that ad-interim relief granted earlier needs to be confirmed as interim relief till final disposal of the petition.
On consideration of the said order it does appear that the Court has observed that interim relief shall remain in operation until final disposal of the petition.
5.1 Ordinarily, such expression in the order would give out that the petition deserves, and calls for, final hearing.
Learned advocate for the original petitioners i.e. present respondents also relied on the averments made in paragraph No.3 of present petition wherein, according to the learned advocate for the opponents, even applicant has admitted that the petition was admitted at the relevant time. He, in particular, relied on the statement made in paragraph No.3 of the petition, which reads thus:-
3........
After issuance of Rule, the accused persons preferred Civil Suit for specific performance and thereby the land becomes disputed land till the disposal of the litigations between the parties.
Having regard to the said statement in the application and also from the tenor of the order dated 31.1.2012, it does appear that the Court intended to hearing petition finally i.e. upon admission of the petition and particularly the word Rule is not incorporated in the order.
So as to avoid such discrepancy or anomaly, it is considered appropriate to observe and clarify that the petition being Criminal Misc. Application No.13137 of 2011 is to be treated as admitted for final hearing.
8.1 Under the circumstances, the petition may be listed before appropriate Court, where final hearing of the petition under Section 482 of the Code, is assigned as per present roster.
8.2 In view of the fact that Hon'ble Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anant S. Dave) has, in the order dated 31.1.2012 observed that ad-interim relief granted earlier needs to be confirmed as interim relief and shall enure until final disposal of the petition, the relief prayed for in present petition is not considered at this stage and instead it is considered appropriate to observe that the petition may be listed for final hearing before appropriate Court on 5.2.2013.
8.3 Learned advocate for the original petitioners i.e. opponents herein has submitted and stipulated that the original petitioners will not seek adjournment and will proceed with the hearing of the petition.
With the aforesaid clarification the application is disposed of.
However, the file of present application being Criminal Misc. Application No.12047 of 2012 may be retained along with the main petition being Criminal Misc. Application No.13137 of 2011 for perusal and consideration by the Court taking up petition under Section 482 of the Code for final hearing.
(K.M.THAKER, J.) suresh 5