7/23/2019 C_CA_931_2012_o_1
1/2
CA/931/2012 1/2 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION - FOR JOINING PARTY No. 931 of 2012In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 1771 of 2011In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14239 of 2010
=========================================================
MAHESHBHAI BHIKUBHAI PARMAR - Petitioner(s)Versus
PATEL NATHABHAI RANCHHODBHAI SWAMINARAYAN KRUPA & 9
-Respondent(s)
=========================================================Appearance
:
MR ASHISH H SHAHfor Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
10.=========================================================
CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.MAJMUDAR
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL
Date : 23/07/2012ORAL ORDER
(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.MAJMUDAR)
This application is preferred by the applicant to
be impleaded as party respondent to the LPA.
2. The LPA is filed by the opponent Nos.1 and 2 original
appellants, who were the original petitioners
in SCA No.14239 of 2010. The said SCA is dismissed by
the learned single Judge, against which, the LPA is
filed. The present applicant had initially filed MCA
No.1191 of 2011 before the learned single Judge for
recalling of the order passed in that SCA. The
learned single Judge while disposing of that MCA, has
observed that the observation made by the learned
7/23/2019 C_CA_931_2012_o_1
2/2
CA/931/2012 2/2 ORDER
single Judge in the writ petition being SCA No.14239
of 2010 shall not bind the present applicant and he is
entitled to take whatever proceedings in accordance
with law.
3. It has been observed by the learned single Judge
at the time of disposing the MCA filed by the
applicant that the decision in Special Civil
Application No.14239 of 2010 shall bind the parties to
the said proceedings only and shall not bind the
present applicant.
4. Considering the said reason given in said MCA and
considering even the dispute in the LPA, we would not
like to extend the controversy raised in this LPA by
allowing the applicant to be joined in the LPA.
5. In the result, the prayer for joining the
applicant as party respondent to the LPA is rejected
as the decision in the LPA will bind only the parties
to the LPA and it will have no effect so far as
present applicant is concerned.
6. With the above, the application is rejected. It
is clarified that the right of the applicant, if any,
shall not be effected in any manner by this order.
[P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.]
[MOHINDER PAL, J.]
shekhar*
