By an order dated 20.9.2006 the learned Civil Court opining that the plaintiff had proved a prima facie case and furthermore the balance of companyvenience is in his favour and he being in exclusive possession of the property in question, an order of injunction was granted.
The appellant filed a suit against the second respondent and Gunuantray Narottamdas Pandya, Chandrakant Narottamdas Pandya, Kirti Kumar Narottamdas Pandya and Naljnchandra Narottamdas Pandya, inter alia for a declaration of the title relying on or on the basis of the said Will.
A companyplaint petition, however, was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, Fist Class, Petlad on 21.9.1996 which was marked as Criminal Case No.
Interpretation of the provisions of Section 195 1 d ii of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, hereinafter called and referred to for the sake of brevity as the Code falls for our companysideration in this appeal.
The Will dated 10.7.1995 was filed along with the plaint together with as many as 28 other documents.
Maniben allegedly executed a Will in favour of the appellant herein.
Appellants mother Maniben was the second wife of Narottamdas Pandya.
It is, however, number in dispute that immediately thereafter, an attempt was made by respondent No.2 to lodge a first information report.
In the plaint of the said suit it was companytended that the defendants therein had been threatening the plaintiff that they would snatch away the possession and such threat was given by defendants No.
The said question arises in the following factual matrix The appellant and respondent No.2 are step brothers.
An application for vacating the said interim injunction was filed by the respondents defendants.
Respondent No.2, admittedly, is his son through the first wife.
She died on 20.8.1995.
17 of the list of documents filed with the plaint.
An interim injunction was granted.
The said Will finds place at Sl.
2 to 4 on 17.7.96.
Leave granted.
