SCA/9813/1999 of DEVENDRAKUMAR BHAILALBHAI VYAS Vs UDESING BUDHABHAI PARMAR on 29 December 1999

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 9813 of 1999

For Approval and Signature:

Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE

============================================================ 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 thereJ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO 1 to 5 No JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ -------------------------------------------------------------- DEVENDRAKUMAR BHAILALBHAI VYASVersus UDESING BUDHABHAI PARMAR -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MRS VASAVDATTA BHATT for Petitioners MR RAJESH R DEWAL for Respondent No. 1 MR UA TRIVEDI, AGP, for Respondent No. 2, 3 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE

Date of decision: 29/12/1999

Rule. Service of rule is waived by learned advocate Shri R.R. Dewal for respondent No. 1 whereas learned AGP Shri Umesh Trivedi waives service of rule for respondents Nos. 2 and 3.

The petitioners have been aggrieved by an order dated 27th September 1999 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. By virtue of the said order, it has been directed that respondent No. 1 be permitted to remain in possession of the land in question.

After hearing the concerned advocates and upon perusal of the record pertaining to the case, it appears that the impugned order is an interlocutory order and still the revision application which has been filed by respondent No.1 has not been finally decided by the Tribunal. Looking to the said fact, I do not think that this is a fit case for interference with the proceedings which are pending before the Tribunal.

However, looking to the facts of the case, it is directed that the Tribunal shall expedite the hearing of the said revision application and try to see that the said revision application is decided preferably before 30th December 2000.

The petition is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the above extent with no order as to costs.

_____

(hn)