Ghanshyambhai Chandubhai Patel Vs. Heir of Patel Biharibhai Dahyabhai - Court Judgment

IN

THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

LETTERS

PATENT APPEAL No. 366 of 2011

In

SPECIAL

CIVIL APPLICATION No. 669 of 2011

With

LETTERS

PATENT APPEAL No. 367 of 2011

In

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 670 of 2011

=========================================================

GHANSHYAMBHAI

CHANDUBHAI PATEL - Appellant(s)

Versus

HEIR

OF PATEL BIHARIBHAI DAHYABHAI - Respondent(s)

=========================================================

Appearance :
MR

MEHUL S SHAH for

Appellant(s) : 1 - 2.MR SURESH M SHAH for Appellant(s) : 1 - 2.
MR

HARSHADRAY A DAVE for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2,4 - 6.
None for

Respondent(s) : 3,7 - 9.
- for Respondent(s) : 10 -

15.
=========================================================

Date

: 04/10/2011

ORAL

ORDER

(Per

: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)

1. As

   the present appeals arise against the common order passed by the

   learned Single Judge, they are being considered by this common

   order.

2. Both

   the appeals arise against the order dated 25.01.2011 passed by the

   learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Applications

   No.699 and 670 of 2011, whereby the learned Single Judge, for the

   reasons recorded in the order, has dismissed the petitions and has

   further directed for quantification of the costs of Rs.25,000/- in

   each of the petition.

3. After

   arguments were concluded, when we were not inclined to entertain the

   Letters Patent Appeals in view of the decision of the Division Bench

   of this Court in the case of Gustadji Dhanjisha Buhariwala v Nevil

   Bamansha Buhariwala reported in 2011(2)GLR 1357 and also the

   submission of the learned counsel for the appellants to refer the

   matter to the larger bench, at that stage, Mr.Shah, learned counsel

   for the appellants prayed that the appellants would be desirous to

   withdraw the appeals with a view to pursue the proceeding of pending

   appeals before the District Court at an early date.

4. Mr.S.N.

   Shelat, learned counsel appearing with Mr.Harshad Dave on behalf of

   the main contesting respondents concerned declared before the Court

   that the respondents, i.e., his clients shall not insist for the

   payment of costs of Rs.25,000/- in each matter as ordered by the

   learned single Judge and they shall waive the aspect of recovery of

   the costs, if any.

5. Mr.Nilesh

   for respondents no.10 to 15 has supported the stand of the

   appellants.

6. In

   above view of the matter, as on the aspects of costs, the

   declaration is already made on behalf of the concerned respondents,

   no further observation deserves to be made. As the appellants are

   desirous to withdraw the appeals, we find it proper to leave the

   matter at that stage with a liberty to withdraw the present Letters

   Patent Appeals.

7. The

   learned counsel appearing for both the sides have declared before

   the Court that if the appellants move the learned District Judge for

   early hearing of the concerned appeals, they shall cooperate.

   Hence, we observed that if such a motion is made, the attempt shall

   be made by the concerned District Court to decide the appeals as

   early as possible.

8. Both

   the appeals are disposed of accordingly.

9. It

   is observed that rights and contentions of both the sides in the

   pending appeals before the District Court shall remain open.

(JAYANT

PATEL, J.)

(R.M.

CHHAYA, J.)

*bjoy