Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 140 (GUJ)

Chandrakantbhai Ratanlal Desai v. Collector Dahod

2011-02-28

J.C.UPADHYAYA

body2011
Judgment J.C. Upadhyaya, J.—Heard Mr. SN Thakkar, Ld. Counsel for the petitioners in both the matters and Mr. HJ Trivedi, Ld. Counsel for contesting Respondents Nos. 9 and 10 in Special Civil Application No. 16527/2003 and for contesting Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 in Special Civil Application No. 17096/2005. 2. Special Civil Application No. 16527/2003 is filed challenging the order dated 24/10/2003 passed by the Ld. 4th Joint Civil Judge [S.D.] Godhra below application Exh. 12 in Regular Civil Suit No. 268/2003, whereby the said application filed by the petitioners herein to implead them as co-defendants came to be rejected. 3. Mr. Trivedi, Ld. Counsel for Respondents Nos. 9 and 10 in Special Civil Application No. 16527/2003 vehemently opposed this petition and submitted that there are cogent and convincing reasons for rejecting application of the petitioners and as a matter of fact, they are not either necessary or proper or interested parties and, therefore, petition deserves dismissal. 4. I have heard at length both the Learned Counsel and I have perused the relevant papers annexed with these petitions. Having considered the submissions advanced by both the sides so also having considered the papers annexed with these petitions and more particularly the copy of Resolution No. 22 produced at Annexure-D, without going deep into the merits of the case, it transpires that the trial Court should have allowed the application Exh. 12 of the third party [the petitioners herein]. I have also considered the copy of the plaint and more particularly Paras. 7 and 10 of the plaint as well as the relief prayed for by the contesting respondents herein, who were original plaintiffs in the said suit. 5. However, Special Civil Application No. 17096/2005 has been filed by the petitioners challenging the impugned order dated 1/8/2005 passed by the Ld. 5th Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Dahod, below application Exh. 51 in Regular Civil Suit No. 352/2004, whereby the said application preferred by the third party [the petitioners herein] for staying the further proceedings of the suit till Special Civil Application No. 16527/2003 is heard and decided by this Court. The said application came to be rejected by the trial Court. However, today both these petitions have been heard and Special Civil Application No. 16527/2003 is ordered to be allowed. Therefore, virtually the cause for Special Civil Application No. 17096/2005 may not survive. However, Mr. Thakkar, Ld. The said application came to be rejected by the trial Court. However, today both these petitions have been heard and Special Civil Application No. 16527/2003 is ordered to be allowed. Therefore, virtually the cause for Special Civil Application No. 17096/2005 may not survive. However, Mr. Thakkar, Ld. Counsel representing the petitioners submitted that it would be in the interest of justice if both the suits are consolidated to avoid conflicting decision. However, without expressing any opinion, this Court feels that it would be open for the party to take necessary steps before the trial Court. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the Special Civil Application No. 16527/2003 is allowed and the impugned order dated 24/10/2003 passed by the Ld. 4th Joint Civil Judge [S.D.] Godhra below application Exh. 12 in Regular Civil Suit No. 268/2003 is set aside and the petitioners are ordered to be impleaded as co-defendants in the said suit. It is hereby made clear that in this order, no observation touching the merits has been made and the trial Court shall be at liberty to decide the aforesaid suit in accordance with law on the basis of the evidence that may be adduced before it, uninfluenced by any observation either made in the impugned order or in this order. Rule is made absolute accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Special Civil Application No. 17096/2005 stands disposed of. Rule is discharged accordingly.