Gujarat High Court
CRA/74/2000 of MODI NAILESHKUMAR DASRATHLAL Vs PANDYA JAYANTILAL NARAYANBHAI on 29 November 2002
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No 74 of 2000 with Civil Application No.2970 of 2000 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE P.B.MAJMUDAR ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No 74 of 2000
with
Civil Application No.2970 of 2000
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE P.B.MAJMUDAR
============================================================
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. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgment? 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 concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals?
-------------------------------------------------------------- MODI NAILESHKUMAR DASRATHLAL
Versus
PANDYA JAYANTILAL NARAYANBHAI
-------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance:
MR BS PATEL for the Petitioner.
MRS RANJAN B PATEL for Petitioner No. 1
MR PK JANI for Respondent No. 1-6
MR PUSHPADATTA VYAS for Respondent No. 7
-------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE P.B.MAJMUDAR
Date of decision: 29/11/2002
ORAL JUDGEMENT
By the impugned order, the appellate Judge has granted leave to the present respondents 1 to 6 to prefer an appeal against the decree in question, which is a consent decree. The order of the appellate court is not required to be interfered with by this Court in a revision under S.115 of CPC. However, it would be open for the present petitioner to raise all available points before the appellate court as and when the appeal is taken up for hearing on merits.
Subject to the above observations, the CRA is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. In view of the order in the CRA, no order in Civil Application No.2970 of 2000.
29th November, 2002 ( P.B. Majmudar, J. )
***
(apj)