JUDGMENT : BELA M. TRIVEDI, J. 1. Both the appeals being interconnected with each other and in respect of the same premises, they are heard together with the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties. 2. The First Appeal No.4758 of 2007 was filed by the appellant Pershotambhai Valjibhai Vania, challenging the separate judgment and decree dated 27.8.2007 passed by the Judge, City Civil Court No.9, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court”) in Civil Suit No.3408 of 2002 and the First Appeal No.4759 of 2007 was filed by the same appellant, challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.8.2007 passed by the same Court in Civil Suit No.3633 of 2002. During the pendency of the appeals, the original appellant having expired, his heirs were permitted to be brought on record. Similarly, the respondent No.1 Jabbarkhan Sulekhan in First Appeal No.4758 of 2007 having expired during the pendency of the appeal and no cause of action having survived against him, he was also permitted to be deleted from the causetitle of the First Appeal No.4758 of 2007. 3. For the sake of convenience, the facts of First Appeal No.4759 of 2007 are considered. 4. The respondent-Shankutalaben Shankerbhai Kosti (original plaintiff) had filed the Civil Suit No.3633 of 2002 against the appellant (original defendant) Pershotambhai Valjibhai Vania, seeking permanent injunction against the defendant for restraining him from creating any obstruction/encroachment on the footpath belonging to the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, and abutting on the Northern side of the suit shop belonging to the plaintiff. The plaintiff also sought mandatory injunction for removal of the miscellaneous articles, benches, etc., placed by the defendant in front of the shutter of the shop belonging to the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, she was put in possession of the property in question on 18.9.2002 by the original owner Jabbarkhan Sulekhan by executing an agreement and power-ofattorney in her favour. Subsequently, the said suit shop being within the disturbed area, the plaintiff had purchased the same by way of sale deed executed by the said owner on 27.2.2003, after obtaining necessary permission from the Collector on 24.2.2003. As per the case of the plaintiff, the appellant (defendant) had made encroachment upon the footpath on the Northern side of the suit shop causing obstruction to the plaintiff, and therefore, the suit was filed. 5. As per the case of the plaintiff, the appellant (defendant) had made encroachment upon the footpath on the Northern side of the suit shop causing obstruction to the plaintiff, and therefore, the suit was filed. 5. The appellant had also filed another suit being No.3408 of 2002 against the said Jabbarkhan Sulekhan, and Shankerbhai Ramchandrabhai, husband of Shakuntalaben, seeking permanent injunction against the defendants in the said suit, restraining them from putting up any window, grill or jaliya on the wall of the said shop. It was alleged in the said suit that the appellant was carrying on the business on the land bearing Plot No.62 belonging to the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and had constructed temporary shed for his miscellaneous business. According to him, the defendants in the said suit were trying to open the window/jaliya on the wall falling on the Northern side of the shop, and therefore, the said suit was filed. 6. The trial Court by separate judgments dated 27.8.2007, decreed the Civil Suit No.3633 of 2002 and dismissed the Civil Suit No.3408 of 2002 with cost of Rs.10,000/-. Being aggrieved by the said judgments and decrees, the present appeals have been filed. 7. Having regard to the judgments and decrees passed by the trial Court and to the record of the case, the only issue that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the appellant Pershotambhai Valjibhai Vania had any legal right to carry on business on the footpath belonging to the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, causing obstruction to the respondent – owner of the suit shop in carrying on his business in the suit shop. It appears that the appellant was claiming his right on the strength of his long possession on the land bearing Final Plot No.62 belonging to the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, with regard to which he had earlier filed one Civil Suit being No.6841 of 1988 against the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. The said suit was dismissed by the Court vide the judgment and decree produced at Exh.33. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant had preferred the First Appeal being No.1681 of 2000 before the High Court and the same was also dismissed by the order dated 28.8.2000. The LPA filed against the said order was also dismissed on 24.9.2003. The said suit was dismissed by the Court vide the judgment and decree produced at Exh.33. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant had preferred the First Appeal being No.1681 of 2000 before the High Court and the same was also dismissed by the order dated 28.8.2000. The LPA filed against the said order was also dismissed on 24.9.2003. Thus, it appears that the appellant having failed to protect his possession on the disputed premises on the northern side of the respondent’s shop, had filed the suit being No.3408 of 2002 against the respondent seeking injunction. The respondent also claiming to be the owner of the suit shop had filed the suit being No.3633 of 2002 against the appellant as stated herein above. From the oral as well as the documentary evidences adduced by the appellant (defendant) in both the suits, the trial Court had come to the conclusion that the appellant had filed the suit for injunction abusing and misusing the process of law and that he was the trespasser on the disputed premises. 8. Mr.Joshi for the appellant has failed to point out as to how the possession of the appellant was legal. The only contention raised by Mr.G.M. Joshi for the appellant is that the respondent Shakuntalaben was not the owner of the suit shop on the date of filing of the suit being No.3633 of 2002. According to him, though she was put in possession of the suit shop by virtue of an agreement dated 18.9.2002 executed by the original owner Jabbarkhan Sulekhan (who was the respondent No.1 in First Appeal No.4758 of 2007 and the defendant No.1 in Civil Suit No.3408 of 2002), she had purchased the shop only on 27.2.2003 i.e. pending the suit. Pressing into service the provisions contained in the Gujarat Prohibition of Transfer of Immovable Property and Provision for Protection of Tenants from Eviction from Premises in Disturbed Areas Act, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act”), he submitted that any transfer of immovable property situated in the disturbed area without the permission of the Collector would be void, and in the instant case, the respondent having obtained the permission only pending the suit before the trial Court, she could not have filed the suit as the owner of the suit shop. The said submission of Mr.Joshi can not be accepted. The said submission of Mr.Joshi can not be accepted. Apart from the fact, as to whether the sale deed executed by the original owner Jabbarkhan Sulekhan in favour of the respondent Shakuntalaben was legal and valid or not in view of the provisions of the said Act was not the issue in either of the suits before the trial Court, nor is the issue before this Court, it appears that the sale deed dated 27.2.2003 produced at Exh. 43 was executed after obtaining necessary permission from the Collector on 24.2.2003. The said position has also not been disputed by the learned Advocate Mr.Joshi for the appellant. The agreement of sale dated 18.9.2002 and the possession receipt in favour of the respondent (plaintiff) were produced on record at Exh. 34 and 35 respectively, from which it was duly established that the plaintiff was legally put in possession of the suit shop by virtue of the said documents. The suit was filed by the appellant on 17.10.02 i.e. after she had taken over the possession of the suit shop from the said owner Jabbarkhan Sulekhan. During the pendency of the suit, the sale deed was also executed on 27.2.2003 after obtaining necessary permission from the Collector. Under the circumstances, it could not be said that the respondent (plaintiff) had no right to file the suit No.3633 of 2002, against the appellant, who was illegally carrying on business on the footpath belonging to Corporation and causing obstruction to the respondent. For filing the suit seeking injunction against the defendant or restraining the defendant from causing any obstruction or nuisance near one’s shop, one need not be the owner of the suit shop. The respondent - plaintiff being in legal occupation of the suit shop and having filed the suit against the defendant for injunction, and during the pendency of the suit, she having acquired the ownership and the defendant having failed to establish his legal right or occupation of the disputed premises i.e. the footpath belonging to the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, and since he was causing obstruction to the respondent - plaintiff she was entitled to file the suit. 9. 9. The trial Court, after elaborately discussing and considering the evidence on record had arrived at the conclusion in Civil Suit No.3633 of 2002 that the respondent - plaintiff was the owner of the suit shop by virtue of sale deed dated 27.2.2003 and the respondent - plaintiff had also proved that the appellant (defendant) had made encroachment causing obstruction to the plaintiff’s right of way, on the disputed premises, belonging to the Municipal Corporation, which was being used for ingress and egress. The trial Court had also come to the conclusion in the Civil Suit No.3408 of 2002 that the appellant had failed to prove that he was in legal possession of the disputed premises on the footpath by putting up the construction of a shed. He had also failed to prove that the respondent (defendant) had no right to open window or door in the southern wall of the suit shop of the respondent. The trial Court had categorically held that the plaintiff could not be protected for a minute as he had sufficiently abused the process of law and wasted Court’s time and public money to protect his illegal possession. Accordingly, the trial Court had dismissed the suit with exemplary cost of Rs.10,000/-. 10. This Court completely agrees with the said findings arrived at by the trial Court and is of the opinion that the judgments and decrees passed by the trial Court in both the suits deserve to be confirmed. However, at this juncture the learned Advocate Mr.Joshi submits that the cost imposed by the trial Court in Civil Suit No.3408 of 2002 be set aside as the appellant was bona fide pursuing his legal remedy. Having regard to the said submission, the cost imposed by the trial Court on the appellant is set aside and to that extent the decree dated 27.8.2007 in Civil Suit No.3408 of 2002 is modified. 11. In view of the above, both the First Appeals are dismissed, however, the order of cost imposed by the trial Court in Civil Suit No.3408 of 2002 is set aside. Decrees be drawn accordingly.