Gujarat High Court
AO/512/1988 of KANTILAL VELJIBHAI SAVLA Vs BALCHANDBHAI M THAKKR on 3 December 1998
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER No 512 of 1988 Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE Y.B.BHATT ============================================================ 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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
APPEAL FROM ORDER No 512 of 1988
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE Y.B.BHATT
============================================================
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?
-------------------------------------------------------------- KANTILAL VELJIBHAI SAVLA
Versus
BALCHANDBHAI M THAKKR
-------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance:
MR NV SOLANKI for Appellant
MR SV RAJU for Respondents No.1 to 4
MR SN SHELAT for Respondent No. 5
-------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE Y.B.BHATT
Date of decision: 03/12/98
ORAL JUDGEMENT
1. This is an appeal under Order 43, Rule 1, CPC at the instance of the original plaintiff. The order impugned in the present appeal appears to be a common order passed in two different suits. In this context learned counsel for respondent no.4 places on record a Xerox copy of the final order passed in Regular Civil Suit no.504/87, showing that the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant has been disposed of. The said counsel also makes a statement that the other suit (which had been filed by the present respondent no.4) has also been disposed of. Under the circumstances the present appeal no longer survives and is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.
2. Liberty to apply in case of necessity. 3. All office objections except court fees are dispensed with.
03.12.1998����(Y.B. BHATT J.)