MOHANBHAI BHIMABHAI RATHOD v. TRIKAMBHAI BHIMABHAI RATHOD
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 115
- Constitution of India art. 227
Judgment
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.MAJMUDAR Date of decision: 24/03/2004 ORAL JUDGEMENT (cid:9)The petitioners herein are the original plaintiffs of Civil Suit No.17/1997, which is pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (J.D.) Wadhwan. The said suit is filed by the plaintiffs for declaration and injunction. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they are in possession of the suit property. In the said suit, an interim application for injunction was pressed into service at Exh.5. The trial Court allowed the said application submitted by the plaintiffs for interim injunction. By the said order, the trial Court ordered respondents No.2 to 4 not to obstruct the possession of the plaintiffs of the disputed plot. Against the said order, the respondents herein preferred an appeal before the District Court being Civil Misc. Appeal No.71/1997 by resorting to Order 43 of C.P.C. The appellate Court allowed the said appeal and set aside the order passed by the trial Court below Exh.5. Being aggrieved by the said order of the appellate Court, original plaintiffs have filed this revision application under Section 115 of C.P.C. 2)(cid:9)Considering the fact that this revision is filed against an interlocutory order, the same is not maintainable in view of the amendment in Section 115 of C.P.C. In that view of the matter, without considering the merits of the case, this revision application is rejected, as the same is not maintainable. Rule is discharged. No costs. 3)(cid:9)It will be open for the petitioners to challenge the impugned order of the appellate Court by filing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. To enable the petitioners to take appropriate remedy available to them, interim relief granted earlier by this Court is ordered to be extended upto 15th April, 2004. (cid:9) (cid:9)(P.B.Majmudar,J.) /malek (cid:9) (cid:9) (cid:9)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 115; Constitution of India — art. 227.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gujarat High Court, on 24 Mar 2004. The bench was P B MAJMUDAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.