SA/115/2008 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SECOND APPEAL No. 115 of 2008 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6540 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 ? ========================================================= BALUBHAI BHANGIYABHAI CHAUDHARI & 4 - Appellant(s) Versus AMRUTBHAI BABUBHAI CHAUDHARY & 5 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR HRIDAY BUCH for Appellant(s) : 1 - 5. None for Defendant(s) : 1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.3.1, 1.3.2, 1.3.3,1.3.4 - 6. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 10/07/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1.0 This appeal arises out of the judgment SA/115/2008 2/3 JUDGMENT and order passed by the learned Jt. District Judge & Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 5, Surat at Vyara in Regular Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2000 dated 15.01.2008 whereby, the said appeal was dismissed. 2.0 The facts in brief are as under; 2.1 The respondents, original plaintiffs, filed a suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 18 of 1991 before the Court of learned Jt. Civil Judge (J.D.), Bardoli praying for a permanent injunction against the appellants, original defendants, restraining them from interfering with their possession in respect of the property bearing Cone Nos. 514, 523 and 537 of Village Kalamukhi, Taluka Valod, District Surat. The said suit came to be allowed by the trial Court vide judgment and order dated 31.12.1999. 2.2 Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellants preferred an appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2000 before the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 5, Surat at Vyara. The appellate Court, after hearing the parties and after considering the evidence on record, dismissed the appeal of the appellants. Hence, this appeal. SA/115/2008 3/3 JUDGMENT 3.0 Heard learned Advocate for the appellant and perused the documents on record. While considering the case of the appellants, both the Courts below have discussed the entire evidence in detail. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the findings arrived at by both the Courts below and find no reasons to interfere in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises within the meaning of Section 100 of C.P.C. 4.0 In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. [K. S. JHAVERI, J.] ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION Since the main matter has been disposed of, the civil application shall not survive. It stands disposed of accordingly. [K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*