NISHABEN VISHALBHAI SHARMA & 1 - Appellant(s) Versus JOLLY JOSE KERIKUNDAN - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance :
MR MEHUL S SHAH for Appellant(s) : 1 - 2.MR SURESH M SHAH for Appellant(s) : 1 - 2. None for Respondent(s) :
1, ========================================================= CORAM :
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA Date : 13/04/2012 ORAL COMMON ORDER :
Heard Mr. Mehul Shah, Ld. Advocate for the appellants and perused the copy of the impugned order annexed with the appeal.
2. Mr. Shah, Ld.
Advocate for the appellants original defendants contended that the suit filed by the respondent is defective in the sense that appropriate reliefs are not prayed in the suit, though the appellants defendants are in actual and physical possession of the suit premises pursuant to a registered sale-deed in their favour, no decree for possession is claimed. It is further submitted that there is no dispute that the impugned order below application exh. 5 for temporary injunction came to be passed by the trial Court on 30/11/2009, but since there was delay in preferring the instant appeal, time was consumed. It is, therefore, submitted that the appeal deserves admission and appropriate order may be passed.
3. I have taken into consideration a very relevant fact, namely the impugned order came to be passed way back on 30/11/2009 in a Special Civil Suit No. 247/2006. Under such circumstances, the instant litigation between the parties is pending since last about 6 years. In above view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that without touching merits of the matter, it would be in the interest of justice for both the parties that the concerned trial Court is directed to expedite the hearing of the old matter itself.
4. For the foregoing reasons, the instant appeal stands disposed of and the trial Court is directed to expedite the hearing of the Special Civil Suit No. 247/2006 and the trial Court shall dispose of the suit in accordance with law, preferably on or before 31/12/2012. It is hereby made clear that in this order, no merits are examined and the trial Court shall be at liberty to dispose of the suit in accordance with law on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence that may be led before it, uninfluenced by the order passed by this Court or the impugned order passed by the trial Court dated 30/11/2009.
Registry to communicate this order to the concerned trial Court immediately.
Resultantly, the Civil Application for stay loses its survival value and stands disposed of.
(J.C.UPADHYAYA, J.) * Pansala.
Top