MCA/1191/2011

1/3

ORDER

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFGUJARATATAHMEDABAD
MISC.CIVILAPPLICATIONFORORDERSNo.1191of2011
In
SPECIALCIVILAPPLICATIONNo.14239of2010
=========================================
MAHESHBHAIBHIKUBHAIPARMARApplicant(s)
Versus
PATELNATHABHAIRANCHHODBHAI&9Opponent(s)
=========================================
Appearance:
MRASHISHHSHAHforApplicant(s):1,
SERVEDBYAFFIX.(N)forOpponent(s):1,
MRSATYAMYCHHAYAforOpponent(s):12.
NOTICESERVEDforOpponent(s):210.
MR.DABHI,ASSIT.GOVERNMENTPLEADERforOpponent(s):3,
MRHSMUNSHAWforOpponent(s):4,
MRJIGARPRAVALforOpponent(s):79.
MRPRANAVVSHAHforOpponent(s):10,

=========================================
CORAM: HONOURABLEMR.JUSTICEM.R.SHAH

Date:16/12/2011
ORALORDER

1.0.

Presentapplicationhasbeenpreferredbytheapplicant

herein third party to the Special Civil Application No.14239 of

2010, to recall the order dated 21.2.2011 passed by this Court
passedinSpecialCivilApplicationNo.14239of2010,inapetition
filedbyrespondentnos.1and2hereinoriginalpetitioners.
2.0.

ShriAshishShah,learnedadvocatefortheapplicanthas

submittedthatassuchtheaforesaidSpecialCivilApplicationfiled
byrespondentno.1hereinwasacollusivepetitionfiledincollusion
withtherespondentnos.7to9.ItissubmittedthataCivilSuitis
already pending in the Civil Court instituted by applicant herein
withrespecttotheveryland/plotinquestionandtheapplicantis
alsochallengingthegrantofdevelopmentpermissioninfavourof
respondentnos.7to9herein.Itissubmittedthatinviewofthe

MCA/1191/2011

2/3

ORDER

decisionofthisCourtinSpecialCivilApplicationNo.14239of2010
dismissing the said Special Civil Application, in which, the
developmentpermissiongrantedinfavourofrespondentnos.7to9
waschallenged,thesaiddecisionislikelytocomeinthewayofthe
applicantandtherefore,itisrequestedtorecallthesaidorder.
3.0.

Having heard the learned advocates for Shri Ashish

Shah, learned advocate for the applicant, Shri Chayya, learned

advocatefortheopponentnos.1and2herein(originalpetitioners)
andShriJigarRaval,learnedadvocatefortheopponentnos.7to
9hereinoriginalrespondentnos.5to7,presentapplicantcanbe
disposedofbyobservingthatthedecisionintheaforesaidSpecial
CivilApplicationNo.14239of2010shallbeconfinedtothepartyto
thesaidSpecialCivilApplicationonlyandrightsoftheapplicant
withrespecttotheplotinquestionhasnotbeenconsideredbythis
Court and the pending proceedings initiated by the applicant
beforeanyauthorityshallbedecidedanddisposeofinaccordance
withlawandonmeritsandwithoutinanywaybeinginfluenceby
thedecisioninSpecialCivilApplicationNo.14239of2010andthe
decisioninthesaidSpecialCivilApplicationNo.14239of2010and
thedecisioninthesaidSpecialCivilApplicationcanbewithrespect
to the opponent nos. 1 and 2 herein original petitioners and
respondenttotheaforesaidSpecialCivilApplication,asthisCourt
hasdismissedtheaforesaidSpecialCivilApplicationmainlyonthe
ground that the original petitioners were consenting party to
obtainingdevelopmentpermissionandtherefore,itwasnotopen
forthemtochallengethesame.Totheaforesaid,ShriShah,learned
advocate for the applicant has stated at the bar that if suitable
observations to the aforesaid effect are made and the present

MCA/1191/2011

3/3

ORDER

application is disposed of, he has no objection. Similarly, Shri

Chaya,learnedadvocatefortheoriginalpetitionersopponentnos.
1and2hereinandShriRaval,learnedadvocatefortheopponent
nos.7to9hereinoriginalrespondentnos.5to7havealsostatedat
the bar that present MCA is disposed of by making suitable
observationsasstatedhereinabove,theyhavealsonoobjection.
4.0.

Inviewoftheaboveandforthereasonsstatedabove,

presentapplicationisdisposedofbyobservingthatthedecisionin
SpecialCivilApplicationNo.14239of2010shallbindthepartiesto
thesaidproceedingsonly,moreparticularly,opponentsno.1and2
herein original petitioners and the opponent nos. 7 to 9 herein
original respondent nos. 5 to 7 and same shall not bind the
applicantandthisCourthasnotexpressedanythingwithrespectto
theallegedrightoftheapplicantinthefinalplotinquestionand
anyproceedingsinitiatedbytheapplicantwithrespecttotheplot
in question and / or development permission in question either
pendingbeforetheCivilCourtand/oranyotherappropriateCourt
shall be considered in accordance with law and on merits
considering the alleged right of the applicant in the plot in
question.ItisalsoobservedthatintheaforesaiddecisionthisCourt
has not considered and/ or expressed anything on merits with
respect to the alleged rights of any other party in final plot in
question.Withthis,presentapplicationisdisposedof.
(M.R.SHAH,J.)
kaushik