CRA/1324/1999 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 1324 of 1999 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= DHARMENDRA BALDEVBHAI PATEL - Petitioner Versus NOBLE INSTITUTE PRIVATE LIMITED – Respondent ========================================================= Appearance : MR BAIJU JOSHI for Petitioner : 1, MS MARIYA DALAL FOR MR YATIN SONI for Respondent : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT Date : 26/03/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Mr. Baiju Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Civil Revision Application is in fact filed challenging the CRA/1324/1999 2/4 JUDGMENT order of the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court dated 13th July, 1999 dismissing the Appeal From Order No. 143 of 1998 preferred by the petitioner assailing the order of Small Causes Court below Exh.5 in H.R.P. Suit No. 1509 of 1998 vacating the interim objection granted on 27.11.1998. Shri Joshi for the petitioner submits that the observation made by the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court while rejecting the Appeal From Order are so swiping as to adversely affect the decision of the suit, which is pending before the trial Court. He submits that the suit is that of year 1998 and in the interest of justice, the same may be ordered to be expeditiously heard and disposed of within a given time framed and trial Court be directed not to be influenced in any manner by the observations made by the trial Court while vacating the interim injunction as well as the observations made by the Appellate Court while rejecting the Appeal from Order and suit be decided on its own merits. 2. Ms. Mariya Dalal appearing for respondent – original defendant submitted that no objection could be raised against such innocuous request. She also submits that as the suit is very old, her client would also cooperate in expeditious hearing and disposal of the suit in a given time framed. CRA/1324/1999 3/4 JUDGMENT 3. Both the counsels under the instructions of parties have agreed to cooperate in expeditious hearing and disposal of the suit and submitted that no avoidable adjournment will be requested and the suit be ordered to be disposed of on or before 30.6.2008. 4. In view of the consensus between the parties for disposal of the suit and in view of no objection on the part of the counsel for the respondent for issuing direction that trial Court shall decide the suit in any manner without being influenced by the observations made by the trial Court while vacating the interim injunction as well as the observations made by the Appellate Court while rejecting the Appeal from Order No. 143 of 1998, this Court is incline to issue the following directions : (i) The H.R.P. Suit No. 1509 of 1998 be heard and disposed of as expeditiously as possible preferably on or before 30.6.2008. (ii) The parties are hereby directed to cooperate in the proceedings with hearing of the suit and may not request for avoidable adjournments. (iii) The trial Court shall decide the suit on its own merit without being influence in any CRA/1324/1999 4/4 JUDGMENT manner by the observations contained in order dated 27.11.1998 made below Exh. 5 in H.R.P. Suit No. 1509 of 1998 as well as observations made by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court in its order dated 13.7.1999 passed in Appeal From Order No. 143 of 1998. 5. Shri Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner in view of the aforesaid directions, under the instructions from his client, who is present in the court and who has been identified by Shri Joshi, seeks permission to withdraw this Civil Revision Application. The permission as sought for is granted. It is clarified that this Court has not opined on the merits of the challenge contained in this matter. Civil Revision Application stands disposed of accordingly as withdrawn. Rule discharged. No costs. R&P be sent to the trial Court forthwith. Direct service permitted. (S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.) pallav