Gujarat High Court
CRA/1980/1996 of RAMBHAI N DHADHAL Vs SHYAM TRADERS THRO'POWER OF ATTON. & PARTNER on 17 December 1996
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No 1980 of 1996 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements? No 2. To be referred
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No 1980 of 1996
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI
============================================================
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? No
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No J
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgement? No
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? No
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? No
-------------------------------------------------------------- RAMBHAI N DHADHAL
Versus
SHYAM TRADERS THRO'POWER OF ATTON. & PARTNER
-------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR DC DAVE for Petitioner MC SHAH Advocate, for No. 1
-------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI Date of decision: 17/12/96
ORAL JUDGEMENT
The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to delete the respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
Rule. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 waives service of rule. At the request of both the sides, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
The petitioner challenges the order dated 10.12.1996 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Amreli directing the parties to maintain status quo till 20.12.1996. That order was made on Misc. Appeal No. 85 of 1996 in which the original plaintiff had put up a grievance that the trial court while issuing notice had not granted ad interim relief to the original plaintiff. The notice issued by the trial court on the hearing of the application for interim relief Exh. 5 was made returnable on 18.12.1996. Therefore, the hearing of that application for interim relief is scheduled to come up tomorrow before the trial court. In this view of the matter, it would be appropriate to direct the trial court to take up the hearing of the application for interim relief as scheduled tomorrow notwithstanding the impugned order.
The appellate court should have allowed the hearing of the application scheduled tomorrow to proceed instead of ordering status quo to be maintained beyond that date. The impugned order is therefore set aside and the trial court is directed to hear the parties on the application for interim relief and decide the same in accordance with law. Status quo will be maintained by both the sides till tomorrow i.e. 18.12.1996. The trial court will take up the hearing of the application as scheduled tomorrow and if the hearing is not completed at the end of the day, make necessary orders on the question of ad-interim relief after hearing both the sides and without being prejudiced by the fact that the status quo was earlier ordered by the appellate court or by this court today. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. Direct service is permitted.
00000