Gujarat High Court
CRA/1459/1997 of HEIRS OF DECD. DILIPCHAND M SANT - ROHINI D SANT & 1 Vs MEENA VINAYAK KHADE on 22 October 1997
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No 1459 of 1997 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.S.PARIKH ============================================================ 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 1459 of 1997
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.S.PARIKH
============================================================
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?
-------------------------------------------------------------- HEIRS OF DECD. DILIPCHAND M SANT - ROHINI D SANT & 1Versus MEENA VINAYAK KHADE -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR AS VAKIL for Petitioners MR AY KOGJE for Respondent No. 1
-------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE M.S.PARIKH Date of decision: 22/10/97
ORAL JUDGEMENT
Rule. Service of rule waived by Mr. A.Y.Kogje, learned advocate for the respondent.
2. The petitioners herein have been facing concurrent findings of facts with regard to acquisition of suitable residence. However, after some amount of submissions, Mr. A.S. Vakil, learned advocate for the petitioners submits before the Court under instructions from his clients, who are present in the Court, that they might be given some reasonable time to vacate the suit premises, since they are at present facing a great deal of financial hardship on account of change in circumstances. Having heard the learned advocates on the question of granting time to vacate the premises, I pass the following order :-
3. The judgment and decree passed in Rent Suit No. 445 of 1985 and confirmed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1995 by the learned Joint District Judge, Vadodara is hereby confirmed subject to modification that the petitioners are granted time to vacate the suit premises upto 30/4/2000 on condition that the petitioners shall file usual undertaking before this Court on or before 7/11/1997 inter-alia stating therein that they will not transfer, assign or part with possession of the suit premises in any manner to any-body and that they will hand-over peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises to the respondent on or before the date stated above, namely 30/4/2000.
Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms only.
No order as to cost.
* * *