FA/908/1989 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 908 of 1989 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 ? ====================================== PUNJIBEN WD/O.PARSOTTAMDAS MOHANLAL PATEL Versus PRAVINBHAI HUKAMJI CHAUHAN ====================================== Appearance : MR THAKOR for MR MC BHATT for Appellant, MR DM BHATT for Appellant. None for Respondent. ====================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 15/05/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By way of this appeal, the original plaintiff has challenged judgment and order of City Civil Court, Ahmedabad dated 26th August 1988, whereby the suit preferred by the present appellant was dismissed. FA/908/1989 2/3 JUDGMENT 2. The facts in brief, as emerging from record, are as under: 3. Appellant herein had filed a suit being Civil Suit No.3786 of 1983 before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, for possession of suit wall situated in the premises bearing M.C.No.2920 in Waghanpole, Ratanpole, Ahmedabad, description of which was given in the suit. It was averred in the suit that the act of defendant of putting wooden rack on that wall was an act of trespass. In the said suit, defendant has filed his written statement and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. After considering the evidence on record, trial Court dismissed the suit by the impugned judgment. Being aggrieved by it, the appellant has filed this appeal. 5. Heard Mr.Thakor, learned advocate appearing for the appellant. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondents. He submitted that the appellant is the owner of the suit wall and the respondent claimed only title of tenancy. He further submitted that the appellant produced before the trial Court judgment and decree rendered in H.R.P. No.1045 of 1985 wherein the issue regarding tenancy of the respondent is adjudicated and it is found that the respondent is not tenant of the suit wall and, therefore, the respondent is a trespasser and the order of the lower Court is required to be reversed. 6. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and also gone through the judgment of the trial Court and other relevant documents. The defendant appeared before the trial Court and after framing issues below Exh.16, City Civil Court has dismissed the suit. More particularly, I find that trespass by the defendant was not established and the plaintiff has failed to prove any case against FA/908/1989 3/3 JUDGMENT defendant with regard to issue nos.8, 9 and 10. I also find that while discussing the evidence in para 10 to 18, the City Civil Court has rejected all the issues against the present respondent. In view of this, I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given and finding arrived at by the City Civil Court while passing impugned order. No other evidence is shown to me to take a contrary view. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. 7. For the reasons stated herein above, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. (K.S.Jhaveri, J.) /malek