- (1.) We have, by our judgment dated 14th August 2014 dismissed the captioned Letters Patent Appeal and confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge. Mr MB Gandhi, learned advocate for the appellants thereafter preferred Misc. Civil Application No.2301 of 2014 on behalf of the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased original appellant, Saritaben V Arora, who died on 10th April 2011 during the pendency of the present appeal for recalling/reviewing our CAV judgment dated 14.8.2014 and for re-hearing the main appeal after brining the legal heirs on record. Mr Gandhi,learned advocate has also preferred Civil Application No.2111 of 2013 on 6th September 2012 for brining the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased original appellant, Saritaben V Arora on record before our CAV judgment dated 14.8.2014 was pronounced. At this juncture, it needs to be noted that when Mr Gandhi, learned advocate for the appellant made submissions on merits of the appeal before us, the fact of original appellant having expired during the pendency of the appeal was not brought to our notice nor that Civil Application No.2111 of 2013 had already been filed in the Registry. He did not move the Registry for getting the civil application circulated for necessary orders. Be it may, by our CAV judgment dated 14.8.2014 we have allowed both the aforesaid applications and the legal heirs of the deceased appellant are ordered to be brought on record and abatement is set aside.
(2.) The appellant has challenged the judgment dated 12th April 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.4969 of 2006 whereby the petition preferred by the respondent came to be allowed and the order dated 19th September 2005 passed by the learned Additional Judge of the Small Causes Court, Rajkot in Civil Misc. Appeal No.24 of 1998 came to be set aside.
(3.) Heard Mr M.B. Gandhi with Mr Chinmay Gandhi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr Mehul Shah, learned counsel for the respondent.;