LPA/166920/2006 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 1669 of 2006 In MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2323 of 2006 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3278 of 2006 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 15132 of 2006 In LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 1669 of 2006 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHARAD D.DAVE ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= PANKAJKUMAR BABUBHAI DESAI - Appellant(s) Versus AGRICULTURAL PROUCE MARKET COMMITTEE & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR VIRAL SALOT for MR KV SHELAT for Appellant(s) : 1, MR TUSHAR MEHTA for Respondent(s) : 1, None for Respondent(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHARAD D.DAVE Date : 31/07/2008 LPA/166920/2006 2/4 JUDGMENT ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT) This Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent has been preferred against the common order dated 25th September, 2006 passed in Misc. Civil Application No.2323/2006 and Special Civil Application No.3278/2006. It appears that the appellant Pankajkumar Desai is running a canteen in the premises of the opponent Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Dahod (hereinafter referred to as, “the Committee”). The applicant has instituted Special Civil Suit No.236/2004 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Dahod for permanent injunction restraining the Committee from evicting the applicant from the market yard. Pending the suit, by order dated 9th November, 2004 made below application Exh.5, the learned Civil Judge refused interim relief. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant preferred Appeal from Order No.388/2004 before the District Court, Dahod. The learned Additional District and Fast Track Judge, by judgment and order dated 3rd February, 2006, allowed LPA/166920/2006 3/4 JUDGMENT the appeal partially and directed that the possession of the plaintiff of canteen premises may not be disturbed by the defendant and that the parties shall maintain status quo regarding the disputed premises. Feeling aggrieved, the Committee preferred Special Civil Application No.3278/2006 before this Court. By order dated 1st March, 2006, the learned Single Judge (Coram: D.A.Mehta, J.) recorded order with the consensus of the learned advocates. By the said order, it was agreed that the Committee would allow the applicant to shift his canteen from open area to the basement of the building. The applicant also agreed to shift his business to the basement of the building. It, however, appears that the basement was already in possession of another caterer one Bharatkumar Kadiya. He refused to part with possession of the part of the basement. The Committee, therefore, could not implement the order made by the learned Single Judge. The Committee, therefore, took out above Misc. Civil Application No.2323/2006 for review of the LPA/166920/2006 4/4 JUDGMENT order dated 1st March, 2006. In view of the facts recorded hereinabove, the learned Single Judge, by impugned order dated 25th September, 2006, allowed the said application and recalled the order dated 1st March, 2006. At the request made by the learned advocate, the Special Civil Application was allowed to be withdrawn and was accordingly disposed of. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred the present Appeal. Mr.Salot has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that pending the present Appeal, the circumstances have changed. An administrator has been appointed for the respondent – Committee. He states that under the changed circumstances, the appellant may make a representation to the Administrator. He, therefore, seeks leave to withdraw this Appeal. Leave is granted. Appeal is disposed of as withdrawn. Civil Application stands disposed of. (Sharad D.Dave, J.) (Ms.R.M.Doshit, J.) /moin