Gujarat High Court
CRA/1443/1999 of AMRUTLAL N GANDHI Vs MULJI GHELABHAI MAKWANA on 26 November 1999
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No 1443 of 1999 Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE Y.B.BHATT ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No 1443 of 1999
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE Y.B.BHATT
============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- AMRUTLAL N GANDHIVersus MULJI GHELABHAI MAKWANA -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR SURESH M SHAH for Petitioners MR JV BHAIRAVIA for Respondent No. 1 RULE SERVED for Respondent No. 2, 4 MR PV HATHI for Respondent No. 3 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE Y.B.BHATT Date of decision: 26/11/1999
ORAL JUDGEMENT
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. As a result of the hearing and discussion a consensus has been arrived at between the learned counsel to the effect that it is not necessary to decide the present revision on merits and on technicalities, and that the interest of justice would best be served by directing the trial court to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and in any case not later than 30th May 2000. It is accordingly so directed.
2. The interim order passed in the revision and operative today shall continue to operate till the suit is decided.
3. It is further clarified that if the suit is not disposed of by the said date, it shall be open to the trial court to record a finding after hearing the other side as to whether the plaintiff was responsible for the non-disposal of the suit as directed or otherwise. If the trial court finds that it was the plaintiff who was responsible for the non-disposal of the suit as directed, it shall be open to the trial court to vacate the status quo order continued by the present order.
4. In view of the aforesaid observations and directions, this revision is disposed of. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
5. Yadi to be sent to the trial court forthwith.
*******