SCA/7233/1991 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7233 of 1991 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= MANEKCHOWK CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD - Petitioner(s) Versus NATIONAL WIRE MFG. CO. & 19 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR AK CLERK for Petitioner(s) : 1, RULE UNSERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 - 6,17 - 18. PARTY-IN-PERSON for Respondent(s) : 1, SERVED BY AFFIX.-(R) for Respondent(s) : 7 - 16. - for Respondent(s) : 0.0.0,0.0.0 ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL Date : 22/02/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has preferred the petition for SCA/7233/1991 2/4 JUDGMENT challenging the order passed by the Tribunal in Revision Application No.160/1990 dated 19.9.1991. 2. It appears that the Revision Application was against the order passed by the learned Nominee dated 27.9.1990 below Ex.30, whereby based on the declaration made before the Nominee, it was ordered by the Nominee to dispose of the suit. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present petition was to be heard with Special Civil Application No.7234 of 1991 and allied matters, however, as on that day, the papers were not placed on Board, the matter could not be decoded. But he submitted that in Special Civil Application No.7234 of 1991 and allied matters, this Court (Coram: S.K. Keshote, J.) vide decision dated 28.7.2000 has directed the Nominee to decide the suit within the stipulated time limit and till then the interim relief granted is ordered to be continued. He submitted that this Court may pass the same order as it was passed in the said proceedings. 4. It appears that when the present petition came SCA/7233/1991 3/4 JUDGMENT to be considered on 15.12.1993, rule was ordered to be heard with SCA No.7234 of 1991 and allied matters and, therefore, the learned Counsel is right in submitting that this petition was to be finally heard with SCA No.7234 of 1991 and allied matters. 5. In Special Civil Application No.7234 of 1991, after recording the reasons, this Court has directed the Nominee to decide the suit within the stipulated time limit and the interim relief was ordered to be continued. It was also observed that in case the suits were already decided, the order would be of no effect and consequences. 6. No other distinguishing circumstances are brought to the notice of this Court. Therefore, the same order deserves to be passed in the present case. 7. Hence, the following orders:- (a) The learned Nominee is directed to try and dispose of the Lavad Case No.2929 of 1985 as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order SCA/7233/1991 4/4 JUDGMENT of this Court. As no interim orders were passed in the present petition, the question of extending interim relief does not arise. However, the status-quo as prevailing today shall be maintained till the suit is finally disposed of by the Nominee. It is also observed that in case the suit is already decided, the order shall be of no effect and consequences. 8. The Special Civil Application and rule are disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. 22.2.2008 (Jayant Patel, J.) vinod