SA/126/1991 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SECOND APPEAL No. 126 of 1991 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ Sd/- ==================================== 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? YES 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? NO 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 ? NO 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? NO ==================================== SHANKERLAL MOTILAL RAJGOR - Appellant Versus EXECUTIVE ENGINEER & 1 - Defendants ==================================== Appearance : MR DC DAVE for Appellant. NOTICE SERVED for Defendant No. 1. MR SUNIL K SHAH for Defendant No. 2. ==================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ SA/126/1991 2/4 JUDGMENT Date : 11/12/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The appellant – original plaintiff has filed this Second Appeal under Section 100 read with Order 42 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the order and judgment dated 26.04.1991 passed by the learned 3rd Extra Assistant Judge, Mehsana in Regular Civil Appeal No.41 of 1991 along with the judgment and decree dated 12.03.1991 passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Mehsana in Regular Civil Suit No.358 of 1990. 2. This Court admitted the Second Appeal on 12.07.1991 and formulated the following substantial questions of law :- A) In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Courts below committed substantial error of law in rejecting the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on the ground that notice as contemplated by Section 320 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act was not served upon the respondent – Panchayat before filing the present suit ? B) In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the suit agreement dated 01.03.1986 is an agreement of SA/126/1991 3/4 JUDGMENT lease or an agreement of leave and license ? C) In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the notice as contemplated by Section 320 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act is a sine quo non before filing the suit ? 3. Heard Mr. D.C. Dave, learned advocate appearing for the appellant and Mr. Sunil K. Shah, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2 and perused the orders passed by the Courts below. The Court has also gone through the records and proceedings of the case. In support of his submissions, Mr. D.C. Dave, learned advocate appearing for the appellant has raised various contentions before the Court and cited several authorities. The Court has considered at great length all these contentions and the authorities cited by him. Mr. Dave has also made an alternative submission that if the Court is not convinced with the contentions raised by the appellant, the appellant may be granted some reasonable time so as to enable him to vacate the premises after making some alternative arrangement. 4. The Court has not found any substance in the contentions raised by Mr. D.C. Dave regarding merits SA/126/1991 4/4 JUDGMENT of the matter. Hence, alternative submission made by Mr. Dave is considered by the Court. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of dispute between the parties, the Court hereby thinks it just and proper to grant six months time to the appellant to vacate the premises in question. It is made clear that on or before 30.06.2009, the appellant shall hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the respondents. An undertaking to this effect will be filed by the appellant before this Court within 10 days from today. 6. Subject to the aforesaid direction and observation, this second appeal is accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs. 7. Registry is directed to send back the record and proceedings to the Trial Court forthwith. Sd/- [K. A. PUJ, J.] Savariya