Vineet Kothari,J. - (1.)These intra-Court appeals are directed against the order dated 31.03.2014 by which the learned Single Judge of this Court refused to invoke the powers under Order 39 Rule 2(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure for the alleged sale of some part of the land of revenue survey Nos.183/1/A and 183/1/B of Village Tarsali, Taluka and District Vadodara. The relevant observations of the learned Single Judge in the order impugned before us are quoted below for ready reference:-
"11. In absence of any specific description of four boundaries of the lands in question and also considering the facts related to difference in area of lands in question referred above, it is very difficult to jump to the conclusion that the opponents herein have committed any breach of the order dated 15.01.2001 passed in Special Civil Application No.236 of 2001 as referred hereinabove, more particularly, when area of the disputed land shown in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and the area of disputed land mentioned in para-2 of the main petition is not tallied as referred hereinabove. Moreover, on the submissions made by learned advocate Mr. Kazi for opponent No.1.2 to the effect that the lands in question related to both the survey Numbers i.e. 183/1/A and 183/1/B is situated on the southern side of the society and which is the agricultural land and is also open and which is more land in area than what has been claimed by the applicants-original petitioners as referred above and the same is in possession of opponents, nothing substantial has been submitted by the learned advocates for the applicants.

12. It is also important to note at this juncture that the date of order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal is 11.12.2000 as shown in the impugned order at Annexure-"N". Considering the fact that, if we refer the order dated 15.01.2001 passed by this Court in Special Civil application No.236 of 2001, the copy of which is at page-21, the same is talking about the order of Tribunal dated 18.12.2000. Prima-facie, there appears typographical error, but on the said order, the applicants-original petitioners have put much reliance and in light of the said order dated 15.01.2001, the present Civil Applications have been filed by the applicants of the above referred Civil Applications, also against some of the opponents who are not original respondents of the main petition. 12.1 It is also important to note that Civil Application No.929 of 2010 has been filed by the applicants-original petitioners for bringing heirs of respondent No.1 i.e. Khanderao Narayanrao Savale and the Rule was issued to proposed respondents No.1.1 to 1.4 and all were served, but none has appeared and the said Civil Application was allowed on 07.10.2010 and main matter was fixed for hearing on 28.10.2010. It is the fact that, no notice of Rule was issued in the main matter to newly added respondents, who are the legal heirs of deceased-original respondent No.1 i.e. Khanderao Savale.

13. Under the circumstances, in absence of any specific four boundaries related to lands in question i.e. revenue survey No.183/1/A and revenue survey No.183/1/B and considering the difference in area related to lands in question referred above, in my view, it cannot be said that the opponents herein have committed any breach of the order dated 15.01.2001 passed in Special Civil Application No.236 of 2001. Thus, the present Civil Applications preferred by the applicants-original petitioners, in my view, are not maintainable in law for the reasons discussed hereinabove. Thus, as there appears no substance in the present Civil Applications preferred by the applicants-original petitioners as well as by respondent Nos.2/1/1 to 2/1/3 and 3, the same deserve to be dismissed, and accordingly, both the Civil Applications are hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged in each Civil Application. Interim Relief stands vacated forthwith. No order as to costs. After pronouncement of this judgment, learned advocate Mr.A.J.Patel and learned advocate Mr.J.M.Patel for the applicants have requested to stay the implementation of this judgment and further requested to extend earlier interim order passed by this Court. Request made by learned advocates for the applicants is hereby granted. The implementation of this order is hereby stayed upto 10.06.2014 and the interim relief, granted earlier, is hereby extended upto 10.06.2014."

(2.)The said proceedings were initiated for the alleged breach of the interim order dated 15.01.2001 passed in Special Civil Application No.236 of 2001, which was decided vide order dated 09.12.2016 whereby, the case was remanded back to the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal to decide the revision preferably within a period of four months. However, despite the lapse of four years, the same stands pending before the learned Gujarat Revenue Tribunal.
(3.)Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant Ms. Trusha Patel, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, as the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge for not invoking the powers under Order 39 Rule 2(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure are genuine and since the matter now stands remanded back to the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, all questions of fact regarding the boundaries, exact area of the aforesaid two survey nos. of land along with tenancy rights of the appellants, are yet to be determined by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. In the absence of clear defined area, the alleged sale of part of this land, apparently, has not been held to be in violation of the interlocutory order passed in Special Civil Application No.236 dated 15.01.2001. No valid exception to the same can be taken by the appellants. Therefore, leaving these questions open and free to be decided by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, where the revision is still pending, we decline to interfere with the said order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 31.03.2014 and the Letters Patent Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal is expected to decide the revision as expeditiously as possible. The Civil Applications stand disposed of accordingly.