FA/2358/1987 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 2358 of 1987 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= SAMSUDDIN GANIBHAI MATHAK - Appellant(s) Versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR ARUN H MEHTA for Appellant(s) : 1, MR PRASHANT G DESAI for Defendant(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 10/07/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1.0 This appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Court No. 13, Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No. 4857 of 1985 dated 23.09.1987 FA/2358/1987 2/4 JUDGMENT whereby, the said suit was dismissed. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are as under; 2.1 The appellant – original plaintiff had filed a suit being Civil Suit No. 4857 of 1985 before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad praying for a declaration that the construction carried out on an area of 1284 sq. yards of land bearing Survey No. 320/1 of Dani Limda, Ahmedabad was not unauthorized and and permanent injunction to the effect that the respondent – original defendant be restrained from the demolishing the said structure. In the said suit, the respondent filed its written statement. 2.2 The trial Court, after hearing the parties and after considering the evidence on record, dismissed the suit of the appellant. Hence, this Appeal. 3.0 Heard learned counsel for the respective FA/2358/1987 3/4 JUDGMENT parties and perused the documents on record. In Paragraphs No. 15 & 16 of the impugned judgment, the trial Court has assigned cogent reasons while dismissing the suit in question. On appreciation of the documentary evidence on record, I find that the Court below was completely justified in recording the conclusion that the Notices issued by the Officers of the respondent – Corporation to the appellant were in consonance of the delegation of powers given by the Municipal Commissioner to that effect. 4.0 Moreover, the appellant was also not in a position to dispute the finding arrived at by the trial Court that the Notice dated 15.03.1985 [Exhibit – 63] issued by the respondent – Corporation was received by him to which he had also given his reply vide reply dated 16.03.1985 [Exhibit – 64]. In the said reply, the appellant has stated that as the walls and other portion of the factory were in a dilapidated condition, the same were being renovated. FA/2358/1987 4/4 JUDGMENT 5.0 However, neither in the plaint nor in the examination-in-chief, any averment was made to the effect that any alteration / addition has been made in the suit building. Therefore, it is evident that the appellant had not carried out renovation work but, had carried out new construction over the suit building in question. 6.0 Looking to the evidence on record, I am of the view that the Court below was completely justified in dismissing the suit of the appellant. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the findings arrived at by the Court below and hence, find no reasons to interfere in this appeal. 7.0 For the foregoing reasons, the appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs. [K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*