SCA/5715/2008 1/6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5715 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= SHAMALBHAI VANASIBHAI TADVI - Petitioner(s) Versus SUMANBHAI VITTHALBHAI TADVI & 4 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR SHAILESH C PARIKH for Petitioner(s) : 1, None for Respondent(s) : 1 - 5. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER Date : 04/07/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 21.1.2007 passed below Exh.5 in RCS No.338/2006 as well as the order dated 21.6.2007 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Narmada in Misc. Civil Appeal No.6/2007. By the order dated 21.1.2007 the SCA/5715/2008 2/6 JUDGMENT learned trial Court disallowed application Exh.5 and by order dated 21.6.2007 the learned appellate Court has confirmed the said order. Accordingly, two orders having concurrent findings and decisions are challenged in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Mr. Parikh has appeared on behalf of the petitioner. I have heard Mr. Parikh at length. He vehemently submitted that the father of the petitioner was a tenant of the suit land and that at the relevant point of time, since the petitioner's father was in jail, it was the petitioner, who paid the entire amount of purchase price fixed by the concerned authorities. On the basis of such payment, the petitioner claims right of exclusive ownership and possession of the suit land. Mr. Parikh submitted that all along the past years, it is the petitioner, who has been cultivating the land in question. He further submitted that in light of such facts and circumstances, the SCA/5715/2008 3/6 JUDGMENT relief as prayed for by the petitioner before the learned trial Court i.e. direction restraining the defendants in the suit from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit land by the petitioner ought to have been granted and the learned Courts have erred in rejecting said relief in favour of the petitioner. Mr. Parikh has taken this Court through the orders. 3. I have closely examined the averments made in the interim relief application i.e. Exh.5 and also the order dated 21.1.2007 as well as the order dated 21.6.2007. The learned trial Court has expressly recorded, after closely examining the relevant documents which were placed on record of the suit that, the diverse documents such as form Nos.8A, 7/12 etc. disclose that the suit land is in the joint names of the petitioner herein and his brother(s) and that therefore, it cannot be believed or even presumed that the petitioner has exclusive ownership or is in exclusive possession of the SCA/5715/2008 4/6 JUDGMENT suit land. The learned trial Court has also recorded that the documents available on record shows that the name of the defendant is also mentioned as owner and occupier in the relevant record. It is pertinent that the entries in the record have not been challenged by the petitioner at any time before the competent revenue authority. On the basis of the documents available on record at the relevant point of time, the learned trial Court has recorded prima-facie conclusion and rightly so, that the land continues to be in joint names of the plaintiff and the defendant and the petitioner has failed to produce any evidence to rebut the same and/or to disprove the said documentary evidence. During hearing of the present petition also, Mr. Parikh has not been able to demonstrate as to how the said conclusion and findings of the learned trial Court are manifestly incorrect or contrary to any documentary evidence on record. On the contrary, it comes out from the impugned order that the said findings are based on the documents SCA/5715/2008 5/6 JUDGMENT available on record. The learned appellate Court has also, after examining the documents, confirmed the order of the learned trial Court. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I do not find any manifest error or illegality in the impugned orders, much less any error of jurisdiction or law. Hence, no case for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. Present petition fails and is accordingly disposed of. 4. After the order is dictated, Mr. Parikh has submitted that in view of the result of the orders, a situation would arise where the land may not be cultivated by anyone and that therefore, it would be appropriate if the suit proceedings are concluded at a earlier stage. He, therefore, requests for direction to the learned trial Court for early disposal of the suit proceedings. Considering the said request, I am of the view that if the applicant would request the learned trial Court to expedite the suit proceedings on the aforesaid ground, the learned trial Court would, subject to its SCA/5715/2008 6/6 JUDGMENT roster, do the needful in hearing and deciding the matter at the earliest. Kdc [K.M.Thaker, J.]