CRA/84/2008 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 84 of 2008 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 ? ========================================================= MOHMADUNUS ABDUL SAMAD AKHUNAJI & 1 - Applicant(s) Versus ABDUL AZIZ SAID BHAI BILADIWALA - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR SM SHAH WITH MR RC JANI for Applicant(s) : 1 - 2. MR ASHISH M DAGLI for Opponent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 31/07/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1.0 This revision application is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.02.2008 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 4, Mehsana in Regular Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2004 whereby, CRA/84/2008 2/3 JUDGMENT the said appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 31.12.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Visnagar in Regular Civil Suit No. 135 of 1995 was confirmed. 2.0 The facts in brief leading rise to the filing of the present application are as under; 2.1 In 1995, the respondent, original plaintiff, filed a suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 135 of 1995 before the Court of learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Visnagar against the applicants, original defendants, for possession of the property bearing City Survey No. 2/5 of Survey No. 151 and having M. C. No.2/12/104, admeasuring 26 sq. metres. The trial Court, after hearing the parties and after considering the evidence on record, decreed the suit in favour of the respondent. 2.2 Being aggrieved by the same, the applicants preferred an appeal before the District Court, Mehsana. The learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 4, after considering the entire evidence on record, dismissed the appeal preferred by the applicants. Hence, this revision application. 3.0 Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court has recorded a finding that the applicants, original CRA/84/2008 3/3 JUDGMENT defendants, had committed breach of the Rent Note produced on record vide Exhibit – 63. The applicants, original defendants, had carried out permanent construction over the suit property in question contrary to the stipulations contained in the Rent Note [Exhibit – 63]. Looking to the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that the Court below was completely justified in decreeing the suit in favour of the respondent, original plaintiff. I am in complete agreement with the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below and hence, find no reasons to interfere in this revision application. 4.0 For the foregoing reasons, the application is dismissed. [K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*