IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No 1431 of 1995 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- RANCHHODBHAI PURSHOTTAMBHAI VASAVA Versus JAYANTILAL NANJIBHAI VASAVA -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR RM VIN for Petitioners NOTICE SERVED for Respondent No. 1, 2, 3 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE Date of decision: 20/02/2001 ORAL JUDGEMENT 1. This revision application arises out of a judgment and order passed in Misc. Civil Application Appeal No.81 of 1991 on 17.8.1994 by learned Second Joint District Judge, Bharuch. The said appeal arose out of an order passed by learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Jhagadia, below Ex.5 in Regular Civil Suit No.8 of 1991, on 12.07.1991. The revisioners are the original defendants in the suit and respondents are the original plaintiffs in the suit. The revisioners are, therefore, addressed to as "the defendants" and the respondents as "the plaintiffs" for the sake of convenience. 2. The plaintiffs preferred a suit in respect of survey No.235 admeasuring 2.67 Hectare/Are situate in the outskirts of Amalsar of Jhagadia taluka of Bharuch district, seeking injunction against the defendants restraining them from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff and enjoyment of the property. The defendants came with a case that they are in possession of the suit property and are cultivating the land. The Trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, dismissed application Ex.5. The plaintiffs, therefore, approached the Appellate Court with Misc. Civil Appeal. The First Appellate Court, after considering the rival side contentions, allowed the appeal restraining the defendants from interfering with possession of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit land. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr. R.M. Vin for the revisioner. He has taken this Court through the impugned judgment and order as well as the order of the Trial Court. 4. On perusal of the judgment and order of the Appellate Court, it is found that the learned Judge has taken into consideration the documentary evidence produced on record. It is evident that the plaintiffs were found to be in possession of the suit land as per contemporaneous record of rights maintained by the revenue department. The land is found to be under cultivation, i.e.under the cultivation of the plaintiffs. In the educational cess receipts produced by the defendants, the survey number of the land is not mentioned. The First Appellate Court has accepted the affidavits in support of the plaintiff and has, ultimately, come to a conclusion that the suit land originally belonged to the father of the plaintiff and is inherited by the plaintiffs. The land is in possession of the plaintiffs and is under their cultivation. 5. This Court finds no error either of fact or of law least of jurisdiction to have been committed by the Appellate Court. Under the circumstances, in absence of any jurisdictional error having been found or indicated, this revision application cannot be entertained. The same deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No costs. [ A.L. DAVE, J. ] gt