Gujarat High Court
CRA/133/1999 of CHANDRAKANT MEGHAJIBHAI GOHEL Vs BACHUBHAI HIRJIBHAI MISTRY on 26 November 1999
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No 133 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 133 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 -------------------------------------------------------------- CHANDRAKANT MEGHAJIBHAI GOHELVersus BACHUBHAI HIRJIBHAI MISTRY -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR BP MUNSHI for Petitioners MR SURESH M SHAH for Respondent No. 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- 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.
2. As a result of the hearing and discussion it appears that the interests of justice would not necessarily be served by deciding the present revision on technicalities, but it is in the interests of both parties that the suit be decided on merits as
3. It is, therefore, directed that the trial court shall hear and dispose of the pending suit as expeditiously as possible and in any case not later than 30th April 2000. It is clarified that the present status quo order shall continue to operate until the suit is decided.
4. However, for whatever reason the trial court is unable to dispose of the suit by the stipulated date, it shall be open to the trial court, after hearing both the sides, to determine whether it was the defendant who was responsible for non-disposal of the suit as directed or not. If the trial court finds that it was the defendant who was responsible for the non-disposal of the suit as directed, it shall be open to the trial court to vacate or modify the status-quo order.
5. On the basis of the aforesaid observations and directions this revision is disposed of. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
directions this revision is disposed of. Rule is
6. Direct service permitted.
*********