MALI NARSINHJI CHUNAJI Vs. JAYANTIJI GIRDHARIJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN view of the application by Party -in -Person to retire his learned advocate Mr.V.R. Halani, learned advocate stands retired and the Party -in -Person is permitted to proceed with the case.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the applicants and also the Party -in -Person.

(3.) THE short issue which requires consideration is with regard to the opportunity that was required to be given to the applicants, who are respondents in the proceedings under the Mamlatdar Courts Act. The respondents had instituted the said proceedings under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar Courts Act for removal of obstruction to the access of his agricultural land allegedly put up by the petitioners. The Mamlatdar, after hearing the parties, directed the removal of the said obstruction; the matter was taken in appeal before the Deputy Collector, who by his order dated 18.07.2012 dismissed it against which the present Revision Application is preferred before this Court. Various contentions were raised by the learned counsel for the applicants namely that the plaint was not properly presented as required under the Act nor were the mandatory requirement contemplated in Sections 7, 8 and 9 observed by the authorities below, neither any of the arguments on that count were dealt with by the authorities below. It was also contended that the panchnama was drawn with regard to the disputed property, but despite repeated application, copy thereof was not made available to the applicants, and therefore, it was not possible for them to meet with the case projected in the panchnama.