Decided on March 18,1983

Jethiben Appellant
MANIBEN Respondents


V.V.BEDARKAR - (1.) This is a revision petition against the order dated 30 passed by the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge Junior Division Mehsana below application Ex. 210 in Regular Civil Suit no. 202 of 1979 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to transpose her as plaintiff and the plaintiff of that suit who wanted to withdraw the suit should be transposed as defendant no. 2.
(2.) The case has an interesting history. The petitioner purchased a property bearing Block no. 8/A situated in Alkapuri Housing Society Mehsana for an amount of Rs. 25 0 from one Babaldas Laxmandas Patel (present opponent no. 2) by a sale deed dated 26-4-1977. In the said sale-deed opponent no. 2 had also assured the present petitioner to help and co-operate for a complete transfer of the said property in the name of the petitioner in the records of the Municipality Govern- ment and the Society. It was also the case of opponent no. 2 in the sale-deed that no person other than opponent no. 2 had any right title or interest in the said property. The case of the petitioner is that thereafter she became the owner and occupant of the said property and on 30-7-1979 she was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said properly. She was also recovering the rent from the tenants. As the petitioner is the ordinary resident of Bombay she used to be at Bombay. Whenever she used to be at Bombay she used to lock her house. When she bad so gone to Bombay after locking her house opponent no. 2 had taken unauthorised possession of the same by breaking open the lock. Therefore she received a telegram from her tenant Govindbhai Asharam Bardanwala on 1-9-1979 to that effect. On inquiry the said telegram was found to be true. Therefore she filed a criminal complaint in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class Mehsana. It is also her case that opponent no. 2 had taken unlawful possession of the petitioners property and allowed unlawfully without jurisdiction opponent no. 1 to enter into the rooms of the suit property under the pretext of alleged Banakhat of sale of the said property said to have been executed by opponent no. 2 on 29-4-1979 in favour of opponent no. 1.
(3.) It is the contention of the petitioner that with a view to justifying and protecting the said illicit act of opponents nos. 1 and 2 opponent no. 1 in conclusion with opponent no. 2 filed Regular Civil Suit no. 202 of 1979 on 19-9-1979 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge Junior Division Mehsana and had obtained an ad interim ex parte injunction forbidding the petitioner from entering in the suit property. Then according to the petitioner after the affidavit etc. said ad interim ex parte injunction was vacated. Then on the strength of various grounds mentioned in paragraph 8 of the petition and documents referred to therein as contended by the petitioner the learned trial Judge came to a plenary finding that the suit property belonged to the present petitioner and opponent no. 2 had no right whatsoever to execute any Banakhat in favour of opponent no. 1 in respect of the suit property and if at all such transaction had taken place between opponents nos. 1 and 2 it was totally illegal. Thereafter opponent No. 1 preferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeal no. 45 of 1980 in the Court of the learned Joint District Judge Mehsana. The said appeal was allowed and the order dated 11-3-1980 of the learned Civil Judge which was appealed against was set aside on 16-6-1981 and the injunction was restored. Against that order the present petitioner filed Civil Revision Application no. 2306 of 1981 before this Court which was heard by N. H. Bhatt J. who by his order dated 8-3-1981 gave a direction to the trial Court to take up the matter soon on hand and disposed it of as expeditiously as possible and in no circumstances beyond 15-8-1982. Then some further directions were given.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.