J.B. Pardiwala, J.:— Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Trilok Patel, the learned counsel waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the opponent No. 1. Mr. Rakesh Patel, the learned AGP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the opponents Nos. 2 and 3.
2. By this application, the applicants have prayed for the following reliefs:
“4(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the judgment and decree dt. 27.03.2018 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 97 of 2017 (old RCA No. 23 of 2013);
(B) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant such other further reliefs as deemed fit in the interest of justice.”
3. It appears from the materials on record that there is a litigation between the parties as regards an agricultural parcels of land bearing survey No. 365 situated at village: Khanpur at Bakor, District: Mahisagar. The applicants herein have preferred Second Appeal No. 224 of 2018 in this Court challenging the judgment and decree passed by the 6 Additional District Judge, Panchmahal at Godhra in the Regular Civil Appeal No. 97 of 2017 arising from the Regular Civil Suit No. 7 of 2011, which was instituted in the Court of the Principal Civil Judge, Khanpur at Bakor by the opponent No. 1 herein. The Second Appeal preferred by the applicants has been admitted vide order dated 25 July 2018 on five substantial questions of law In the civil application preferred by the applicants herein, the following order came to be passed dated 25 July 2018, which reads thus:
“1. This second appeal is ordered to be admitted on the following substantial questions of law;
“(A) Whether the Appellate Court has erred in considering the suit property to be in the independent ownership and possession of the plaintiff without considering the Sale Deed dt. 07.07.1979 whereby the plaintiff no. 1 has put her thumb impression in the said Document giving the right title and ownership of the suit property with possession to the defendants?
(B) Whether the Appellate Court has erred in holding that the plaintiff was able to prove title or interest over the suit property without challenging the sale deed dt. 07.07.1979 by way of which the defendants get the right title and ownership of the suit property?
(C) Whether the Appellate Court was legally justified in rejecting the argument of the present Appellants that the plaintiff had no right or title to file the suit per se as the plaintiff no. 1 had was a party to the sale deed dt. 07071979 which has not been declared to be obtained by way of fraud?
(D) Whether the Appellate Court has erred in not deciding the contention of the defendants that the Suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by law of limitation as the plaintiff has challenged the Revenue Entries of the year 1981 by preferring the Regular Civil Suit No. 42 of 2004 (New No. 7 of 2011) after a period of 22 years? (E) Whether the Appellate Court has erred in setting aside the judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court after examining the entire dispute and coming to the Conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to prove his title and ownership on the suit property?””
4. It appears that as the opponent No. 1 herein succeeded before the first Appellate Court being declared as the lawful owner of the suit property, he went before the revenue authority with the judgment of the first Appellate Court and got his name mutated in the record of rights. It appears that the revenue authority entered the name of the opponent No. 1 herein in the record of rights, and at the same time, has deleted the names of the applicants herein from the record of rights. It also appears that before deleting the names of the applicants herein from the record of rights, a notice under Section 135D of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code was issued, and in response to the same, the applicants also raised objections.
5. According to Mr. Bhatt, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants, the concerned revenue authority ought not to have mutated the name of the opponent No. 1 in the revenue record, and at the same time, ought not to have deleted the names of his clients from the revenue record. Mr. Bhatt would submit that when this Court has directed the parties to maintain status quo as regards the nature, character and possession of the suit property, there could not have been any changes or any addition or deletion in the revenue record so far as the suit property is concerned.
6. It appears that the act complaint came to be committed much before this Court passed the order on the civil application. As on date, the order passed by this Court is in force. Both the sides have been directed to maintain status quo as regards the nature, character and possession of the suit property. At this stage, I may only say that if the opponent No. 1 has got his name mutated in the record of rights, the same by itself will not confer any right, title or interest over the suit property. The litigation is still pending before this Court. The final rights of the parties shall be determined on the Second Appeal being decided finally.
7. It is brought to my notice that in the revenue record, there is an entry posted with regard to the pendency of the Second Appeal No. 224 of 2018 in this High Court and also as regards the order of status quo passed by this Court.
8. In my view, the interest of both the sides is well protected as on date.
9. With the above, this application is disposed of.