IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4592 /2021 (arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 14062/2018)

ASIM PANDYA APPELLANT(s)

VERSUS

JALARAM LAND DEVELOPERS & ORS. RESPONDENT(s)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

The grievance made in the present appeal is in respect of the observations of the learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court in the impugned order in paragraphs 22.2 to 22.4. The factual scenario as it emerges from the submissions made before us is that the supporting parties to the plaintiff filed a caveat before the High Court in respect of adverse orders passed on the application filed by the applicant(s) for impleadment of party and grant of injunction. What troubled the learned Judge was the fact that in terms of standing instructions, the matters pertaining to the counsel who filed the caveat are not heard by a particular Judge who was holding the roaster for those matters at relevant stage of time. This necessitated transfer of the matters. The view the learned Judge has expressed is

that there was no need for a caveat to be filed on behalf of the parties as it is the plaintiff who should have filed the caveat and the necessity of filing a caveat by supporting parties to the plaintiff really did not arise.

We also note the submission that the same very counsel has subsequently been designated by the High Court as a senior counsel.

On examining the matter we do find that the situation did not really necessitated the learned Judge to make such observations as it is the right of every party to file a caveat where it is perceived that the order is in his favour. The order was in favour of the original plaintiff but the parties concerned were supporting parties to the plaintiff. That there are standing instructions which would result in the matters being listed before a Bench other than the roaster Bench at the relevant time is a sequitur to that learned Judge's decision not to hear the matters of a particular counsel. We do not think that the counsel could have been faulted in that behalf and thus we consider appropriate to expunge paragraphs 22.1 to 22.4 as 22.1 is a prelude recital to why the observations are made in the subsequent paragraphs.

2

The appeal is allowed accordingly.

.....................J. [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL]

.....................J. [HRISHIKESH ROY]

NEW DELHI; AUGUST 04, 2021. ITEM NO.9 Court 7 (Video Conferencing) SECTION III S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 14062/2018 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 28-03-2018 in SCA No. 75/2018 passed by the High Court Of Gujarat At Ahmedabad) ASIM PANDYA Petitioner(s) VERSUS JALARAM LAND DEVELOPERS & ORS. Respondent(s)

WITH

SLP(C) No. 11347-11349/2018 (III)

SLP(C) No. 11352-11354/2018 (III)

SLP(C) No. 11365-11367/2018 (III)

Date : 04-08-2021 These petitions were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

	HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
	HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY

For Petitioner(s)	Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, Sr. Adv.<br>Mr.Mahesh Agarwal, Adv.<br>Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv.<br>Ms. Ayushi Amod, Adv.<br>Mr. E.C. Agrawala, AOR
	Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan, AOR<br>Mr. Jitendra Malkan, Adv.<br>Ms. Dharita P Malkan, Adv.<br>Ms. Deepa Gorasia, Adv.<br>Mr. Alok Kumar, Adv.<br>Ms. Bhavna Sarkar, Adv.<br>Ms. Nandini Chhabra, Adv.
For Respondent(s)	Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv.<br>Mr. D.N. Ray, Adv.<br>Mr. Dilip Kumar Nayak, Adv.<br>Ms. Disha Ray, Adv.

Mrs. Sumita Ray, AOR Mr. Anshin Desai, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pradhuman Gohil, Adv. Mrs. Taruna Singh Gohil, AOR Ms. Ranu Purohit, Adv. Ms. Tanya Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Jasleen Bindra, Adv. M/S. Aura & Co., AOR Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, AOR Mr. Ashish Yadav, Adv. Mr. Rakshit Jain, Adv. Mr. Vishal Banshal, Adv. Mr. Rahul Gupta, AOR Mr. Yatin Oza, Adv. Mr. Mrigank Prabhakar, AOR Ms. Sakshi Banga, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, AOR Ms. Garima Prashad, AOR Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, AOR Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, Sr. Adv. *

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

SLP(Civil) No.14062/2018

Leave granted.

The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

SLP(C) NoS. 11347-11349/2018,11352-11354/2018, 11365-11367/2018

Mr. Yatin Oza, learned counsel appearing for the legal representatives of deceased respondent Kantilal Ambalal Patel submits that he has obtained instructions that the application filed by the petitioner(s) under Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 bearing No. 149/2013 in Special Civil Suit No. 149/2005, which was decreed on 30.04.2005 can be allowed insofar as the said respondents are concerned. He also makes a statement that consequently the sale deeds executed can also be set aside so far as the said respondents are concerned. On the basis of this statement, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) states that the petitioners do not want to press the petitions as their interests are taken care of as a consequence of the statement made by learned counsel for the said respondents.

We may note that some of the other parties before us seek to object to the aforesaid course of action, but we are not willing to accept that plea for the reason that we are only recording the statement of Mr. Yatin Oza on behalf of his clients and permitting the petitioners to withdraw the special leave petitions as a sequitur thereto. The parties can work out their rights in the different proceedings which are still pending.

The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed as withdrawn in terms aforesaid.

On being mentioned that in SLP© Nos. 10896/2018, 11261/2018, 11336/2018, it is stated that order dated

6

27.07.2021 needs minor correction to the extent it records the statement of learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 to 10. The sentence "The present proceedings arise out of interlocutory proceeding on those appeals" should be read as "the present proceedings arise out of interlocutory proceedings". The necessary corrections be accordingly made.

[CHARANJEET KAUR] [POONAM VAID] ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)

[ Signed order in SLP 14062/2018 is placed on the file ]

* Appearance slip not given.