SCA/5869/1995 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5869 of 1995 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 ? ========================================================= RAJNAGAR COOP. HOUSING SOCIETYLTD. - Petitioner(s) Versus DUDIBEN PREMJIBHAI DODIYA - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR RM CHHAYA for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR DM THAKKAR for Respondent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL Date : 01/04/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The present petition is preferred for challenging the order dated 15th October 1999 SCA/5869/1995 2/3 JUDGMENT (Annexure-F) passed by the Tribunal, whereby, the revision application is allowed and the interim injunction granted by the learned Nominee below Exh.4 is set aside. 2. Upon hearing Mr.Chayya for the petitioner, it appears that the learned Nominee had passed only an ex parte order against which the revision was preferred which has been granted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has exercised the discretion and has interfered with the order passed by the learned Nominee. The Suit is is of the year 1994. Therefore, when the interim injunction has not been granted in the Suit proceedings, no useful purpose would be served by deciding the questions at this stage which are raised in the present proceedings and instead of the same, it would be just and proper to direct the learned Nominee to decide the Suit within some reasonable time. 3. Mr.Chayya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that he has no information as to whether the suit is decided or not decided by this time. 4. Under these circumstance, as no case is made out for interference with the order passed by the Tribunal, the same is not interfered with, but if Lavad Suit No.784/94 not decided by the learned Nominee, shall be decided as early as possible, preferably within a period of 6 months SCA/5869/1995 3/3 JUDGMENT from the receipt of the order of this Court. 5. Subject to the aforesaid direction, Rule discharged. No order as to costs. (JAYANT PATEL, J.) *bjoy