Gujarat High Court
CRA/832/1991 of SONI BHARATKUMAR KHIMJIBHAI RATHOD Vs SONI HARILAL MANGALJI on 14 December 1998
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No 832 of 1991 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 832 of 1991
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?
-------------------------------------------------------------- SONI BHARATKUMAR KHIMJIBHAI RATHODVersus SONI HARILAL MANGALJI -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR YS LAKHANI for Petitioners MR YATIN SONI for Respondent No. 3, 4 None present for other Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE S.K.KESHOTE Date of decision: 14/12/98
ORAL JUDGEMENT
Both the learned counsel for the parties made submissions on merits of the matter but keeping in view two facts namely, (i) that this revision application arises in the matter of grant of temporary injunction in a suit of year 1986 and (ii) this Court has protected the petitioners by grant of interim relief to maintain the status-quo in respect of disputed land, I do not consider it to be appropriate to go on merits of the matter and to decide whether the order passed by the learned first appellate court is legally correct or not.
The interest of justice will be met in case this revision application is disposed of in terms that the plaintiffs shall complete their evidence within a period of two months from the first date fixed for recording of their evidence by the trial court. Thereafter within two months, the defendants shall complete their evidence and within next two months the trial court shall give the final judgment in the matter. This time bound programme as fixed by this Court has to be strictly complied with. Both the learned counsel for the parties undertake before this Court that their clients shall give their fullest cooperation to the trial court in disposing of the suit within the time bound programme as aforesaid. The parties are directed to remain present in the trial court on 11th January, 1999. Till the decision of the suit, the interim relief granted by this Court shall continue. Copy of this order be sent to the trial court forthwith. The civil revision application and Rule stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
**********
zgs/-