Gujarat High Court
CRA/1051/1994 of UNION OF INDIA Vs CHAMPABEN V PATEL on 2 December 1998
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No 1051 of 1994 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 1051 of 1994
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?
-------------------------------------------------------------- UNION OF INDIAVersus CHAMPABEN V PATEL
-------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR JR PANDE for MR JAYANT PATEL for Petitioners MR JA ADESHRA for Respondent
-------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE S.K.KESHOTE
Date of decision: 02/12/98
ORAL JUDGEMENT
#. Mr.Pande, learned counsel appearing for Mr.Jayant Patel for petitioners prays for adjournment of this matter on the ground that the counsel has lost the brief of the matter. It is really shocking that how the matters of Union of India are being dealt with in this Court by the Advocates. However, it is a matter between Union of India and the Advocate concerned.
#. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent states before this Court that the suit out of which this revision application has arisen itself has been dismissed for non prosecution on 15.4.98. He further states that the disputed bill of telephone has already been declared to be invalid by District Consumer Redressal Forum, Bhavnagar.
#. In view of the fact that the suit itself has been dismissed now nothing survives in this Civil Revision Application otherwise. This Civil Revision Application has become infructuous and the same is dismissed. Rule discharged. Interim relief granted by this Court stands vacated. No order as to costs.
.......
(sunil)��