IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER No 2 of 1989 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE B.J.SHETHNA sd/- ============================================================ 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 -------------------------------------------------------------- MANSUKHLAL HARIBHAI PATEL Versus URMILABEN NAVINCHANDRA KALAVADIA -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. Appeal from Order No. 2 of 1989 MR SURESH M SHAH for Petitioners No. 1-7 MR PV HATHI for Respondents No. 1-2 NOTICE UNSERVED for Respondents No. 3-7 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE B.J.SHETHNA Date of decision: 18/10/2001 ORAL JUDGEMENT 1. The appellants are the original defendants No.1 and 7 to 12. They have challenged, in this Appeal, the impugned order dated 14.10.1988 passed below Ex.7 in Special Civil Suit No.89 of 1984 whereby the learned Judge confirmed the earlier ad.interim injunction granted in favour of the respondent - plaintiff on 5.11.1984. Notice was ordered to be issued in this matter to the respondent on 5.1.1989. In response to that notice the respondents No.1 & 2 - original plaintiffs appeared through their learned Counsel Shri P.V.Hathi. However, notices issued to the respondents No.3 to 7 have not been served so far. In ordinary circumstances when the learned Single Judge of this Court ordered to issue notices to the respondents then fresh notice was required to be issued and the matter was required to be decided after hearing them. However, from the impugned order it appears that the real contesting parties are the present appellants who are the original defendants No.1 and 7 to 12 respectively. Therefore, without issuing fresh notice to the unserved respondents the matter is disposed of in view of the fact that the suit is of 1984 and the impugned order is dated 14.10.1988 which was passed almost before 17 years from today and there is no interim order in favour of the present appellant so far. 2. Under the circumstances without going into the legality and validity of the impugned order passed by the trial Court this Appeal is disposed of with a direction to the learned Judge to decide the main Special Civil Suit No.89 of 1984 as early as possible, if it is not decided so far. The learned Judge shall decide the Suit latest by 31st December, 2002, if it is not so far decided. Civil Application No.3 of 1988 will not survive in terms of the order passed in main Appeal. Accordingly the same is disposed of. sd/- (B.J.Shethna, J.) *sas*