1. The present civil revision application u/s.115 of the Code of Civil procedure has been preferred by the applicant herein - original opponent No.2 in Execution Petition No.68 of 1995, to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 08/08/2001 passed by learned Executing Court - learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge (J.D.), Nadiad below Exh.1 in Execution Petition No.68 of 1995, by which, learned Executing Court has allowed the said execution petition preferred by the respondent No.1 herein - original judgement creditor of Regular Civil Suit No.389 of 1988 and by which, learned Executing Court has directed both the parties to the said Execution Petition to abide by the decree passed in the aforesaid Suit for providing road to the decree holder and by further directing that if no such road is given, then the wall which has been constructed on road shall be removed at the cost of the applicant herein - original opponent No.2.
2. After the matter was argued at length by learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and it appears that while disposing of the aforesaid Execution Petition certain important aspect/document i.e. N.A. Permission granted by the Competent Authority with respect to properties of the respective parties passed by District Development Officer, Kheda District Panchayat dated 10/01/1994 and plans produced along with the said N.A. permission, are not considered by the learned executing Court, there is a broad consensus between the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties that the impugned order passed by learned Executing Court be quashed and set aside and the matter be remanded to the learned Executing Court to decide and dispose of the same afresh, in accordance with law and on merits and considering the Non-agricultural use permission granted by the District Development Officer, Kheda District Panchayat, Nadiad dated 10/01/1994 as well as the map produced along with the said N.A. Permission, which has been counter signed by power of attorney holder of the petitioner as well as any other objections/ defences, which may be available to the respective parties under the law. Learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do not invite any further reasoned order as the matter is remanded to the learned Executing Court. Hence, this Court is not assigning any further reasons.
3. In view of the above and without entering into the merits of the case and without expressing anything in favour of the either of the parties and in view of the above broad consensus arrived at between learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties under the instructions from their respective clients, the present Civil Revision Application is allowed in part and the impugned order dated 08/08/2001 passed by learned Executing Court - learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge (J.D.), Nadiad below Exh.1 in Execution Petition No.68 of 1995 is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Executing Court to decide and dispose of the same afresh in accordance with law and on merits and after considering the map produced along with N.A. Permission granted by Competent Authority dated 10/01/1994, which has been counter signed by power of attorney holder of the applicant and Non-agricultural use permission granted by Competent Authority dated 10/01/1994 and any other documents that may be produced by the respective parties (after giving an opportunity to all concerned) and considering the objections/defences, which may be available to the respective parties under the law. That the respective parties may be permitted to produce additional evidence, if permissible under the law and if required for proper adjudication and deciding the dispute in the matter. However, in any case the learned Executing Court to decide and dispose of the same at the earliest but not later than 30/06/2013. All concerned are directed to co-operate learned Executing Court in deciding the matter within stipulated time as stated hereinabove. Until then, all the parties are directed to maintain status quo as on today. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs.
Direct service is permitted.
[M.R.SHAH,J] *dipti