Mr.
Shah submits that in the present appeal, by order dated 5.11.2007, the learned Court has disallowed the notice of motion on the ground that in earlier suit being civil suit No.1668 of 2003 the notice of motion was rejected and therefore, in fresh suit, the plaintiff cannot ask for the same relief, however, the learned Court, as per the submission of Mr. Shah, erred in not appreciating the distinction between the subject matter of civil suit No.1668 of 2003 vis-a-vis the subject matter of present appeal inasmuch as in civil suit No.1668 of 2003, the plaintiff, who is plaintiff in present proceedings, also, has raised dispute in connection with final plot No.192 claiming ownership and the notice of motion was disallowed on the ground that the plaintiff had not challenged the TP scheme whereas, in present proceedings the subject matter is of final plot No.37 and not of final plot No.192. Mr. Shah further submits that plaintiff does not have any other way to ingress and egress as regards final plot No.37 and therefore, the plaintiff has an easementary right in the present suit as regards final plot No.37. Considering the said submission, issue Notice returnable on 16th July, 2008.
[K.M.Thaker, J.] kdc Top