Heard learned advocates for the parties.
Learned advocate Mr.Tattvam Patel who appears on caveat for respondent no.1 vehemently argued that there are concurrent findings of both the Courts below and there is no jurisdictional error also and therefore this Court should not interfere with the impugned order. He also argued that considering the jurisdiction and scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court should not interfere with the findings arrived at by both the Courts below. He also submits that he has no objection if the order passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge below Exh.60 in Regular Civil Suit No.6 of 2010 is continued but he strongly objects for granting any interim relief in favour of the present petitioner.
This Court has gone through the order passed by the trial Court as well as the order passed by the appellate Court and also gone through the initial orders passed by both the Courts below.
Notice and notice as to interim relief returnable on 16.1.2013. Learned advocate Mr.Tattvam Patel waives service of notice for respondent no.1. Both the parties are directed to maintain status-quo till then.
(M.D.SHAH, J.) Srilatha Page 2 of 2