Gujarat High Court
CRA/928/1995 of CHINTAN INDUSTRIES Vs RANJAN PLASTIC PVT. LTD on 19 November 1999
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No 928 of 1995 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE S.K.KESHOTE ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 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 928 of 1995
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE S.K.KESHOTE
============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements?
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 Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- CHINTAN INDUSTRIESVersus RANJAN PLASTIC PVT. LTD -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR MEHUL S SHAH for Petitioner None present for Respondent
-------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE S.K.KESHOTE
Date of decision: 19/11/1999
ORAL JUDGEMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Challenge has been made to the order of the City Civil Court in Summary Suit No. 943 of 1993 dated 5-11-1995 under which the petitioner was granted conditional leave to defend.
3. One of the contentions raised is that the learned trial court has not passed the speaking order.
4. I find merits in this contention. The order is nothing but only a printed order in which fill in the blanks are there and it is very difficult to sustain such an order. Grant of leave conditionally is a serious matter and before doing so, it is expected of the court to consider all the aspects of the matter then pass a reasoned order.
5. Only on this short ground, this revision application succeeds and the same is allowed. The order dated 5-11-1995 of the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Summary Suit No. 943 of 1993 is quashed and set aside. The court below is directed to pass fresh order after hearing the parties concerned. Rule is made absolute.
**********
zgs/-