Gujarat High Court
CRA/991/2000 of PARVATIBEN D/O MODHIA MAGANLALKODARLAL Vs RAJENDRAKUMAR CHANDULAL NAGRAWALA on 29 November 2002
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No 991 of 2000 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE P.B.MAJMUDAR ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No 991 of 2000
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE P.B.MAJMUDAR
============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgment? 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 concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals? -------------------------------------------------------------- PARVATIBEN D/O MODHIA MAGANLALKODARLALVersus RAJENDRAKUMAR CHANDULAL NAGRAWALA -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR KV SHELAT for the Petitioner. MR AJAY R MEHTA for Respondent No. 1 RULE SERVED for Respondent No. 2,4-6 RULE UNSERVED for Respondent No. 3 UNSERVED-EXPIRED (R) for Respondent No. 7 MR CJ VIN for Respondent No. 8-10
-------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE P.B.MAJMUDAR
Date of decision: 29/11/2002
ORAL JUDGEMENT
This revision is filed against an interim order, by which the heirs of original defendant No.2 is permitted to be brought on record. It is not in dispute that the original defendant No.1 is already on the record and, therefore, the suit cannot abate as a whole, as one of the defendants is already on the record. Considering the nature of the order, this court would not like to interfere with the impugned order in a revision under Section 115 of CPC. Petition is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief stands vacated.
It is clarified that, if, according to the defendants, cause of action does not survive or that the suit against the heirs would not be maintainable, they may take all these points in the suit, as these points are required to be decided in the suit itself.
29th November, 2002 ( P.B. Majmudar, J. )
***
(apj)