IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 1259 of 1998 For Approval and Signature: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA ============================================================== ============================================================== ZALABHAI BAVABHAI TALPADA &6 - Applicant(s) Versus UKADBHAI ZAVRABHAI TALPADA &1 - Opponent(s) ============================================================== Appearance : MR AJ PATEL for Petitioner No(s).: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7. None for Respondent No(s).: 1. Mr. Chetan Pandya for MR BHARAT JANI for Respondent No(s).: 1 - 1. -for Respondent No(s).: 0. ============================================================== CORAM :HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA Date : 14/07/2005 ORAL JUDGMENT 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? 1. 2. 3. Mr. A.J. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioners, states that this Civil Revision Application has become infructuousin view of the subsequent development of resolution of the dispute between the parties,. Therefore, he does not press this revision application and urges that appropriate orders may be passed. Mr. Chetan Pandya, learned advocate for Mr. Bharat Jani, learned advocate for respondents, has no objection if appropriate orders disposing of the revision application is passed. Since the petition has become infructuous as the parties have resolved their dispute as stated by Mr. A.J. Patel, learned advocatefor the petitioners, this petitionis disposed of accordingly as it has become infructuous.Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. (A.M. Kapadia, J.) ... (karan)