Gujarat High Court
CRA/1145/1985 of NAGAR PRIMARY EDUCATION COMMITTEE Vs PRAVINABEN TRAMBAKLAL PATHAK on 18 November 1998
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No 1145 of 1985 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE S.K.KESHOTE ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No 1145 of 1985
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE S.K.KESHOTE
============================================================
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 to see the judgements?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgement?
4. Whether this case involves a substantial question 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?
-------------------------------------------------------------- NAGAR PRIMARY EDUCATION COMMITTEE
Versus PRAVINABEN TRAMBAKLAL PATHAK -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR MK VAKHARIA for Petitioner MR RN SHAH for Respondent No. 70 None present for other Respondents MR RN SHAH for Respondent No. 70 None present for other Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE S.K.KESHOTE Date of decision: 18/11/98
ORAL JUDGEMENT
This Civil Revision Application is of the year 1985. It has come up for hearing before this Court after 13 years and it is really shocking that both the learned counsel for the parties are unable state before this Court what ultimately happened with the suit during this period. Be that as it may, the temporary injunction which has been granted by the Courts below has been stayed by this Court and for all these years, those orders passed by the Courts below are lying under stay of this Court. Interim relief which has been granted by this Court continues for all these years.
2. It is also possible that by this time the suit itself would have been decided by the learned trial Court. In these facts and circumstances, I consider it to be in the interest of justice and both the parties that this civil revision application be disposed of in terms that interim relief granted by this Court shall continue till the decision of the suit by the trial Court. Ordered accordingly. The learned trial Court is directed to decide the suit within a period of six months from the date of receipt of writ of this order. Both the parties are directed to cooperate the learned trial Court in disposal of the suit. In case the suit has already been decided by the learned trial Court, then this order needs not be complied with and the interim relief extended shall stand vacated automatically without reference to the Court.
3. Subject to the directions aforesaid the revision application stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
.......
(sunil)��