SCA/3069420/2007 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 30694 of 2007 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 30695 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= PARSOTTAMBHAI RAMJIBHAI VEKARIA & 2 - Petitioner(s) Versus VALLABHBHAI NATHABHAI PATEL - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR ANSHIN H DESAI for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 3. MR PREMAL R JOSHI for Respondent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI Date : 22/09/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. These petitions arise out of similar factual background, they are therefore, heard together SCA/3069420/2007 2/4 JUDGMENT and disposed of by this common order. 2. Facts can be noted from Special Civil Application No. 39694/2007 for convenience. 3. The petitioners herein are the original defendants in Special Civil Suit No.36/2005 filed by the respondent. The suit pertains to certain immovable property which the plaintiff claims to have purchased from the defendants through agreement to sale. For enforcement of such agreement, suit has been filed. 4. It is the case of the defendants inter-alia that suit is not maintainable. That in any case, it is also barred by limitation, delay and latches. 5. Apparently, since the stand of the defendants was that in the meantime the suit property has already been sold, the plaintiff moved application exh. 39 before the Civil Court and prayed inter-alia that the defendants be directed to supply the details of the sale of the suit land such as date and number of purchasers, name of the purchasers, their address and the purchase price. This application came to be allowed by the learned Judge by impugned order dated 3.11.2007. 6. Similar facts arise in Special Civil Application No. 30695/2007 also except that the impugned SCA/3069420/2007 3/4 JUDGMENT order came to be passed below exh.27. 7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties, I find that the trial Court by allowing application exh.39 did not give any direction which would prejudice the defendants. In exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, I do not find it appropriate to interfere. As pointed out by the learned advocate for the petitioner original defendants, in any case, such registered documents would be open to public access and in view of the fact that presently no further order is passed in this regard, I do not find any reason to interfere. 8. Learned advocate Shri Anshin Desai for the petitioners submitted that if the intention of the defendants is to join such purchasers as co- defendants in the pending suit, the petitioners should have liberty to oppose any such application. 9. Learned advocate Shri Premal Joshi for the respondent original plaintiff submitted that the impugned order is passed below exh. 39 wherein no further prayer is made and if the plaintiff files any further application, obviously, learned Judge will pass appropriate order after hearing both the sides. SCA/3069420/2007 4/4 JUDGMENT 10.In view of the above discussion, the petitions are disposed of. Rule discharged. 11.Needless to say, I have expressed no opinion on the aspect whether such substantial purchasers can be brought on record in the present suit or not and all such issues if and when raised, shall be decided by the learned Judge in accordance with law. (Akil Kureshi,J.) (raghu)