Lpa No. 10 of 2012 · Gujarat High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
Judgment
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI Sd/- HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J. DESAI ====================================== Sd/-
Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be NO allowed to see the judgment ?
To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
Whether their Lordships wish to see the NO fair copy of the judgment ?
Whether this case involves a substantial NO question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?
Whether it is to be circulated to the civil NO judge ? ====================================== PASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY THROUGH DY. ENGINEER - Appellant Versus NARENDRABHAI BHAGVANJIBHAI POPAT - Respondent ====================================== Appearance : MS RV ACHARYA for Appellant. MR RC KAKKAD for Respondent. ====================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI LPA/10/2012 JUDGMENT HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J. DESAI Date : 06/02/2012 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI) By way of this Intra-Court Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant – original petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 28.9.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.12878 of 2008 by which the learned Single Judge affirmed the interim injunction order dated 12.5.2006 passed below application Exh.5 by the Principal Civil Judge, Jetpur in Regular Civil Suit No.56 of 2006 as well as the judgment and order dated 15.01.2007 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, 7th Fast Track Court, Gondal – Camp at Jetpur in Civil Misc. Appeal No.18 of 2006.
2. Heard Ms. R. V. Acharya, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. R.C. Kakkad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
3. It is a well settled law that no mandamus can be issued between private parties. The dispute is between two private parties wherein injunction has been granted by the Trial Court. Therefore, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the impugned orders passed by the trial Court as well as first Appellate Court. Further, this Letters Patent Appeal, in our opinion, is not maintainable as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge was under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. LPA/10/2012 JUDGMENT
4. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
5. In view of disposal of appeal, Civil Application also stands disposed of. Sd/- [V. M. SAHAI, J.] Sd/- [A. J. DESAI, J.] Savariya
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.