AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
12 paragraphs · 485 wordsHeard learned counsel for the parties.
Leave granted.
The limited question involved in these appeals is as to whether respondent no. 43, the alleged purchaser of the property in question is to be prohibited from selling or alienating the property/building either developed or undeveloped. The Trial Court rejected the application filed by the appellants seeking restraint order restraining alienation of the property by respondent no. 43. The High Court also did not grant any interim order.
Consequently, the appellants approached this Court with a prayer to restrain respondent no. 43 from alienating the property.
This Court while issuing notice on 29.01.2016 directed that no third party rights be created any further during the pendency of these appeals. Consequently, from 29.01.2016 no further third party rights are created by respondent no. 43.
M/s. Basava Prabhu Patil and Huzefa A. Ahmadi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants while taking us through the material on record submit that in case the interim order restraining respondent no. 43 is not granted the suits may become infructuous and which may lead to multiplicity of proceedings. Thus, they pray that interim order granted by this Court on 29.01.2016 may to be continued.
Per contra, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 43 submits that respondent no. 43 after purchasing the property in question constructed the building with all due permissions of the concerned authorities; that the building thus constructed has 16 units and all the units are already sold prior to 2012. According to her, the interim order dated 29.01.2016 issued by this Court against respondent no. 43 will not help the appellants inasmuch as the alienation had then already taken place and third party rights were already created.
We do not wish to comment anything on merits of the matter. It is open for the parties to initiate action against third parties if alienation has already taken place and if they so choose.
Be that as it may, for the purpose of deciding these appeals it would be sufficient if we direct the interim order dated 29.01.2016 granted by this Court to continue till the disposal of Special Civil Suit No. 710 of 2010 and Special Civil Suit No. 269 of 2010 pending before 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) Mirzapur, Ahmedabad. Ordered accordingly.
By virtue of this order, nothing survives in Appeal from Order No. 255 of 2011 and Appeal from Order No. 258 of 2011 pending before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. Accordingly, Appeal from Order No. 255 of 2011 and Appeal from Order No. 258 of 2011 pending before the High Court stand disposed of.
The Trial Court is directed to decide the Special Civil Suit No. 710 of 2010 and Special Civil Suit No. 269 of 2010 on merits as early as possible but not later than one year.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.