IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER No 48 of 1993 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.C.PATEL ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question 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? -------------------------------------------------------------- PATEL KASHIRAM JOITRAM Versus PATEL JAYANTILAL VITHALDAS -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR MC BAROT for Appellants MR AN PATEL for Respondent No. 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE M.C.PATEL Date of decision: 12/04/99 ORAL JUDGEMENT The appellants are the original plaintiffs. They have filed a suit for injunction to restrain the defendant No.1 from making any construction on the suit land which, according to them, belonged to the Gram Panchayat, the defendant No.2. They also prayed for temporary injunction. At the hearing, it was submitted on behalf of the defendant No.1 that he was a retired soldier and as such the Panchayat had passed a resolution granting the land to him and the Panchayat had also subsequently passed a resolution regularising the construction made by him. The learned trial Judge, after hearing the parties, ordered ad interim injunction to be vacated on condition that the defendant No.1 gave an undertaking that in the event the decision went against him and if the Court came to the conclusion that the construction made by him was illegal, he would remove the same at his own costs. The appellants have challenged the said order of the learned Judge. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the learned Judge is quite just and proper and does not require interference at this stage. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. ***