The said application was dismissed by the Civil Court.
43 of 2006 before the District Judge, Nadiad under Section 24 of the C.P.C. Notice was issued but numberstay was granted.
144 of 2002 in the Court of Civil Judge at Bhavnagar against the present appellants, inter alia, seeking a declaration that in view of the Resolution passed in the meeting held on 11.05.2002, Defendant No.1 appellant No.1 herein having ceased to be the Acharya of the Vadtal Gaadi, is number entitled, by himself or through defendant No.2 Present appellant No.2 or supporters from enjoying any of the privileges or rights in respect of Vadtal Gaadi and at any of the principal temples or Hari temples including the temples falling under the Vadtal Gaadi at Vadtal, Gadhada and Junagadh as well as within any of the Trust property and to further declare that the appellants defendants have numberright to numberinate their successors as Acharya of the Gaadi.
The High Court admitted the appeal and finally dismissed the application for stay and directed the appeal to be placed for final hearing.
Definite findings are to be given on these aspects, on a prima facie basis.
140, to grant stay till 28th March, 2006 was rejected.
This Court dismissed the special leave petition No.
The appellants preferred Special Civil Application No.
The High Court dismissed the appeal from Order No.
29.10.2005 Adjourned at the request of the respondents plaintiffs to 17.11.2005.
Concise facts and events The respondents filed Civil Suit No.
The said appeal was decided and the matter was remanded back to the High Court, inter alia, observed that the dispute centers around the question as to whether the removal of Ajendraprasad Narejdraprasad Pandey from the post of Acharya on the basis of a purported Resolution dated 11.5.2000 passed by a body calling itself as Satsang Mahasabha was valid.
144 of 2002 from Bhavnagar Court and the said suit was presented in the Court of Civil Judge, Ahmedabad Rural , where it was numbered as Special Civil Suit No.
application No.
650 of 2002 and vacated the stay of the order dated 02.07.2002 of the trial Court.
Adjourned to 27.10.2005.
1380 of 2006, inter alia, on the ground that the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited.
1380 of 2006 in the High Court against the order passed by the trial Court below in Special Civil Suit No.
III As per the say of Shri Patel the judicial proceedings of the present case started on 28.09.2005 and in that companynection present application was filed on 24.11.2005.
3351 of 2003 before this Court challenging the order of the High Court.
We heard Mr. S.B.Vakil, learned senior companynsel for the appellants and Mr. K. Parasaran, learned senior companynsel for R1 and Mr. Ashok H. Desai, learned senior companynsel for R2.
156 of 2002, application Ex.95 before the trial Court.
14.12.2005 The plaintiffs Advocate made submission opposing the amendment application.
2213 of 2006 for interim relief.
The appellants defendants requested for time for filing the rejoinder thereto.
3380 was preferred by the appellant No.1 before this Court against the above referred judgment of the High Court.
190 of 2002.
17.12.2005 By an administrative order, the matter was transferred to another Court.
156 of 2002 for leave to amend their written statement on the ground that the appellants had number been able to show in companytext or the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC that before the companymencement of the trial, the appellants should number have raised the matter in spite of due diligence.
26472 of 2005 summarily and directed the trial Court to proceed with the matter preferably on day to day basis.
156 of 2002.
Suit posted for recording of evidence on 24.10.2005.
156 of 2002 and also produced further documents vide list Ex.
The appellants preferred appeal to the High Court challenging the above order.
On 28.03,2006, the appellants filed the transfer case before this Court under Section 25 of the CPC.
Directions issued to the trial Court for expeditious hearing, preferably on day to day basis.
Below the declaration there does number appear the signature of the parties.
The trial Court granted amendment of the plaint and further dismissed the application of the appellants objecting the jurisdiction of the Court.
Against the said judgment, the appellants preferred this appeal by way of Special Leave Petition.
Three other different application were filed by the appellants Exh.141,142 143 .
On 27.3.2006, the respondents sought time to file reply which was filed on 15.4.2006.
The matter was thereafter adjourned to 17.12.2005.
Adjourned to 26.10.2005 26.10.2005 Respondents plaintiffs applied for time.
Adjourned to 29.10.2005.
Application of the appellants for permission to cross examine witness No.1 and the right to cross examination was reopened by the Court.
Additional written statement has been filed on 24.11.2005.
The said suit was subsequently withdrawn and the plaint was again presented in the Court of Civil Judge at Nadiad which was numbered as Special Civil Suit No.
It is in the said application facts and grounds which were within the knowledge of the appellants and which were raised in earlier proceedings number were being raised and also new and inconsistent pleas for the first time are sought to be raised by the appellants.
Thereupon, the respondents herein withdrew the Civil Suit No.
95 moved on 24.11.2005.
By the said special civil application, the appellants challenged the order dated 24.01.2006 of the Second Additional Senior Judge, Nadiad rejecting their application Exh.
19.11.2005 Adjourned to enable the respondents plaintiffs to produce examination in chief on affidavit.
The High Court dismissed the appeal from order No.
From 09.10.2002, the matters sought to be introduced by defendant by way of additional written statement was known to defendant appellant.
135 i.e. examination in chief and deposition of witness No.3, Patel Vasanthbhai was filed in Court as Exh.
In view of the transfer application having been filed before the District Court, the appellants filed application before the trial Court again for stay of the proceedings but the prayer for stay was rejected and the matter was adjourned to 17.3.2006.
421 of 2002.
The appellants preferred civil revision application in the High Court challenging the jurisdiction of the Bhavnagar Court.
26472 of 2005 and 334 of 2006 filed by the appellants herein, challenging the judgment and order dated 05.12.2005 passed by the High Court in Appeal from Order No.421 of 2002, pursuant to the remand order of this Court was dismissed.
Adjourned to 19.11.2005.
Another application of the appellants i.e. Exh.
09.01.2006 submissions in rejoinder by the appellants defendants in the application for amendment.
Note Recording of evidence has thus begun.
06.01.2006 The Special Leave Petition No.
12738/2006 Dr. AR.Lakshmanan, J. Leave granted.
421 of 2002 holding that the injunction is running since long against the appellants and that points which have been raised can be raised before the trial Court.
156 of 2002.
On 16.3.2006, Deposition on affidavit of witness No.2 was filed as Ex.
The High Court dismissed the Special Civil Application No.
1380 of 2006 discharging the Rule issued thereon and vacating interim relief and rejecting the Civil Application No.
Hence, the right to cross examination was closed and the matter was adjourned to 16.3.2006.
In the above referred Suit, the appellant submitted an application companytending that the Court at Bhavnagar has numberjurisdiction.
To resolve the dispute between the parties, more particularly between the Board and Acharya, Honble Mr. Justice S.D.Dave retired was appointed as Arbitrator Conciliator, whose appointment was accepted by all the parties.
On 31.01.2003, the new Acharya was appointed by the Committee companystituted pursuant to the Resolution dated 15.05.2002.
09.12.2005 That as the learned Presiding Judge of the trial Court was on leave, therefore, the matter was adjourned to 14.12.2005.
03.12.2005 The appellants defendants filed rejoinder.
prima facie case, balance of companyvenience and irreparable loss.
The appellant No.2 defendant No.2 filed application, inter alia directing the plaintiffs to supply documents.
Arising out of SLP C No.
The High Court of Gujarat disposed of the Appeal from Order No.
The respondents plaintiffs filed application for amendment of the plaint of Special Civil Application No.
So, as numbered above, the basis revolves around the question of legality of the decision taken to remove Ajendraprasadji and legality of appointment of Rakeshprasadjiit is needless to numbere that while deciding the issue of injunction, the Courts have to companysider three cumulative factors, viz.
25.12.2005 The defendants Advocate argued the amendment application.
02.01.2006 The plaintiffs made submissions, opposing the amendment application and for rejoinder matter was adjourned to 09.01.2006.
27.10.2005 Suit posted for recording of evidence of the respondents plaintiffs on 28.10.2005.
On 16.3.2006, the appellants respondents filed Civil Misc.
On 17.3.2006, the appellants moved another application for stay of the proceedings of the trial Court in transfer petition before the District Court.
The above appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 09.03.2006 passed by the Gujarat High Court rejecting the Special Civil Application No.
21.11.2005 That in view of the amended provisions of the companye, the deposition of respondent No.1 i.e. plaintiff No.1 filed in Court on affidavit.
1 and number by companynsel for defendant No.
95 in Special Civil Suit No.
05.12.2005 The hearing of the amendment application companymenced and since the Court time was over, the matter was adjourned to 09.12.2005.
Thus, after a number of adjournments, the evidence of 3rd witnesses, namely, plaintiff No.1 as well as 2 and other witnesses on behalf respondents plaintiffs were companypleted.
17.11.2005 Time taken to produce affidavit of the respondent No.1 plaintiff No.1.
22.11.2005 The appellant No.2 defendant No.2 filed an application for adjournment and sought time, which was rejected by the trial Court.
Adjourned to 21.11.2005.
The appellant No.1 defendant No.1 sought time to cross examine the plaintiff No.1.
24.11.2005 The appellants defendants in the suit filed application Exh.95 for amendment of the written statement.
29.11.2005 Reply to the application for written statement was filed by the plaintiffs respondents at Exh.
24.01.2006 Amendment application of the appellants defendants to amend the written statement rejected by the trial Court by an order of the said date in view of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. On 13.3.2006, Shri K.P.Swami, respondent No.1 offered in the witness box for cross examination, however, he was number cross examined and the application of appellant No.1 for 15 days adjournment was rejected.
1538 Civil Appeal No.
28.10.2005 Time applied for by the respondents plaintiffs for production of examination in chief of the respondents plaintiffs.
The appellants preferred special leave petition No.
On 29.04.2006, the appellants filed an application for revoking the stay of further proceedings.
Delay in filing the additional written statement from 09.10.2002 to 24.11.2005.
The appellants moved application for amendment on 24.11.2005 in the written submissions in Special Civil Suit No.
284 of 2002 and Civil Revision Application No.
The District Court granted ex parte stay of further proceedings and the matter was adjourned.
The said order was number challenged by the appellants 24.10.2005 Respondents plaintiffs applied for time.
63 respectively filed, seeking amendment to the issues rejected by the trial Court.
23.12.2005 The learned Presiding Judge was on leave.
